tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-203604622014-10-01T22:48:42.316-07:00American Constitutional Research Servicejohnwkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10095532892217206265noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20360462.post-39281368032755268902011-06-07T15:54:00.000-07:002014-09-01T14:09:14.044-07:00Sarah Palin, America is cheering for you! Please defend our Founders on tax reform, deficits and honest money!<br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-line-height-alt: 16.8pt; mso-outline-level: 3;"><span lang="EN" style="color: #cc6600; font-family: &quot;Georgia&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 17pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></div><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 19.2pt; margin: 0in 0in 8pt;"><span lang="EN" style="color: #333333; font-family: &quot;Georgia&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">What is so disturbing to observe among those who are running to hold our nation’s offices of public trust is, rather than identifying and working to withdraw legislative authority which allows our folks in Washington to cause economic misery and hardship, they engage in endless table talk regarding which of their opponents has supported specific legislation that has inflicted the miseries we experience. Occasionally those running for office may even be bold enough to offer a plan to re-arrange the deck chairs on a sinking ship. But is it not common sense and in the best interests of a nation aboard a malfunctioning vehicle headed for certain suicide, to abandon the vehicle rather than merely changing its driver(s)? Are those who step forward to hold our offices of public trust incapable or just <b><i>[1] The most recent act of judicial tyranny being the Kelo decision in which our Supreme Court gave new meaning to the phrase “public use”, a meaning far different than that understood by our founders when framing our Constitution. The new meaning now allowing private property to be taken by folks in government and transferred to a privileged class for their private use . . . the privileged class being well connected with folks in government.unwilling</i></b> to identify how specific legislative authority has been abused and used for over five generations in a manner which defies the documented intentions under which our Constitution was adopted and causes our Nation’s economic misery, while doing so advances the personal fortunes and political ambitions of those behind such acts? <br /><br /><br />Unlike those who today run for political office and spend millions of dollars in the process for the opportunity to attract the spotlight and then use it to inform us of things we already knew, such as the financial miseries we experience which are traceable to despotic legislation and judicial tyranny [1], our founding fathers focused upon the <b><i>causes and cures</i></b> of despotic government! And this becomes only too obvious when studying, e.g., the <br /><a href="http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp"><b><span style="color: blue;">Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, as reported by James Madison</span></b></a> and the rules our founders laid down in our Constitution to circumvent despotic government and insure honest money and honest taxation, two of the primary vehicles now used to inflict economic misery and plunder what America’s businesses and labor have produced.<br /><br />On the one hand with regard to honest money, our founders forbid Congress to emit bills on the credit of the united States, nor make notes of any kind a “legal tender“. If Congress were not forbidden to make notes a legal tender, our founders knew the temptation would exist for Congress to declare a particular note to be our nation’s legal tender, thereby creating a paper money monopoly which would ultimately force businesses and individuals to accept worthless script in payment of debt, while those in charge of issuing the script would be free to sap the real material wealth created by America’s businesses and labor using worthless paper that had been declared a <b><i>“legal tender for all debts public and private”.</i></b><br /><br />To prevent the mischief of paper money and its historical use as a vehicle to swindle what labor and business has produced, our wise founding fathers left the market place free to determine what “notes”, if any be in circulation, were “safe and proper” by forbidding Congress to declare any particular note [such as our existing Federal Reserve Notes] to be a “legal tender” for all debts public and private. SEE <a href="http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_816.asp"><b><span style="color: blue;">The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, reported by James Madison : August 16</span></b></a> <br /><br /><br />Mr. Govr. MORRIS <b>moved to strike out "and emit bills on the credit of the U. States"-If the United States had credit such bills would be unnecessary: if they had not, unjust &amp; useless.</b><br /><br /><br />Mr. BUTLER, 2ds. the motion. <br /><br />______ cut ______<br /><br /><b>On the motion for striking out ["and emit bills on the credit of the U. States"-]<br /><br />N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct ay. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. no. Va. ay. [FN23] N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay. </b><br /><br />[FN23] <b>This vote in the affirmative by Virga. was occasioned by the acquiescence of Mr. Madison who became satisfied that striking out the words would not disable the Govt. from the use of public notes as far as they could be safe &amp; proper; &amp; would only <u>cut off the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender either for public or private debts.</u></b><br /><br />And with regard to taxation and allowing Congress to raise its own revenue in a manner which discouraged the very sufferings now inflicted upon the American People and America’s domestic businesses by Congress, especially its regulatory chokehold and confiscatory taxation, <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>our Founders relied upon principles which are as valid today as when our Constitution went into effect. For example, our Founders intended Congress to tax at our water’s edge [imposts and duties] as a first means to fill our national treasury which not only had foreigners filling our national treasury for the privilege of doing business on American soil __ just as one pays for a ticket to set up a booth at a flea market to sell one’s goods and wares __ but taxing consumption as our Founders intended allows the market place to determine an allowable limit of tax on each article selected for taxation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>Taxing any particular article too high or at a confiscatory level results a lowering of its consumption, thereby lessening the flow of revenue into our federal Treasury. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span><o:p></o:p></span></div><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 19.2pt; margin: 0in 0in 8pt;"><span lang="EN" style="color: #333333; font-family: &quot;Georgia&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></div><br /><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 19.2pt; margin: 0in 0in 8pt;"><span lang="EN" style="color: #333333; font-family: &quot;Georgia&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">Taxing consumption as our Founders intended is not only self-regulating and controlled by the market place, but discourages foolish regulations imposed upon business by Congress which retard their growth and productivity and predictable result in a lowering of federal tax revenue.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>Taxing consumption at our water’s edge also encourages Congress to adopt regulatory laws favorable to America’s domestic manufactures and industries so they will expand and create a higher employment rate which produces a higher consumption of goods by America’s increased labor force while Congress is rewarded with a more productive flow of revenue into the federal treasury from taxes laid upon consumption, especially if directed at articles of luxury while excluding the necessities of life from taxation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 19.2pt; margin: 0in 0in 8pt;"><span lang="EN" style="color: #333333; font-family: &quot;Georgia&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-fareast-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;"><br />The same principles apply to internal “excise” taxes imposed upon articles of consumption which our founders intended to be used as an additional, but second means to fill the national treasury. In the end our founders rightfully chose taxing consumption as Congress’ primary means to fill the federal treasury and intended the market place to limit the amount of tax on each article selected. Hamilton explains taxing consumption in the following manner, they:<br /><br /><b><i>may be compared to a fluid, which will in time find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be by his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his own resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by <u>a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions </u><br /><br />"It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. <u>They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. </u>When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.”</i></b>___ Federalist No 21 <br /><br /><br />Having summarized our Founder’s method to raise a federal revenue from taxing consumption, the question arises as to what is to happen if an emergency arose, such as war, and “Duties, Imposts and Excise” on consumption were found insufficient to meet federal exigencies? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp;</span>Our wise founding fathers solved this problem by allowing Congress an additional power of taxation __ the power to lay a general tax among the States to raise a specific sum of money. But in this case the amount to be raised was to be <b><i>“apportioned among the several States”</i></b>so each State’s share of the tax was proportionately equal to its representation in Congress. <br /><br />In addition to the rule of apportionment, this special tax created a very real movement of accountability if taxing consumption was found insufficient to fund Congress‘ expenditures, because under this tax each State’s Congressional Delegation had to return home with a bill in hand for their State’s Governor and Legislature to deal with to extinguish the deficit created by Congress. And, upon receiving its bill from a State’s Congressional Delegation the Governor and State’s Legislature were then required to transfer the State’s apportioned share from the State’s treasury into the national treasury or raise additional taxes within the State and then transfer that money into the federal treasury to extinguish the deficit created by Congress. <br /><br />Surely the undesirable threat of having to bring home a bill and deplete their own State’s Treasury encouraged each State’s Congressional Delegation to spend less rather than more while in Washington to avoid the required apportioned tax among the States. And it is also important to note that the rule of apportionment precludes the immoral use of class warfare when imposing the general tax among the states because each State’s share of the burden is determine by a fixed formula, while each state was intended to be free to raise its share in it is own chosen way in a time period set by Congress. The formula for this special tax to raise a specific sum to extinguish a deficit ties representation and taxation by the same standard.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>Each state‘s population size, and its burden turns out to be an equal per capita tax if it were laid directly upon the people:<br /><br /><b><br /><br />FOUNDER’S FAIR SHARE FORMULA<br /><br />States’ Pop.<br /><br />---------------- X&nbsp; SUM NEEDED = STATE’S SHARE<br /><br />U.S. Pop.</b><br /><br />Unfortunately, instead of working to re-establish our constitution’s original tax plan and its honest money system, both of which are essential in a free market system and paved the way for America to become the economic marvel of the world when it was followed, those who now run for political office prefer to incite partisan politics to get elected while the leadership of both political parties work in concert to further corrupt our Founder’s plan in order to confiscate what America’s businesses and labor has produced, and they craftily do so using a dishonest money system and dishonest taxation, both of which were specifically rejected by our founding fathers and did so based upon principles to avoid the very calamities we now experience as a nation.<br /><br />So why is it that not one of our political pundits will compare our founder’s constitutionally mandated honest money and honest system of taxation to what is currently legislated by the Washington Establishment? Who among the following list has taken the time to discuss our Constitution’s original plan as our founding fathers intended it to operate: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Schnitt, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, Bill O'rielly, Mike Gallagher, Lee Rodgers, Neal Boortz. Tammy Bruce, Monica Crowley, …. WHO? But isn’t it interesting to note how the above are very adept at fanning the flames of political partisanship which causes a distraction from any meaningful focus and discussion to withdraw the legislative powers now used to cause our miseries? <br /><br />And who among those who are running for office advocate real reform by demanding a return to honest money and our Constitution’s <a href="http://townshipnews.us/?p=1360"><b><span style="color: blue;">ORIGINAL TAX PLAN</span></b></a> as each was intended to operate by our founders, and were specifically designed to preclude our existing miseries and the plundering of America’s wealth now engaged in by our folks in Washington?<br /><br />Bottom line is, until Congress’ hands are rebound by our Constitution’s honest money system and honest taxation, the American People will continue to be the slaves of a government they created to be their servant. <br /><br />Hopefully Sarah Palin will be the one who rises above our beloved talking heads and will articulate the necessity to withdraw from Congress’ power the tools now used to cause our misery and re-establish our Founder’s original plan. <br /><br />JWK<br /><br /><b><i>“Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“</i></b>___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.<br /><br />_____<br /><br /><br /><b><i>[1] The most recent act of judicial tyranny being the Kelo decision in which our Supreme Court gave new meaning to the phrase “public use”, a meaning far different than that understood by our founders when framing our Constitution. The new meaning now allowing private property to be taken by folks in government and transferred to a privileged class for their private use . . . the privileged class being well connected with folks in government.</i></b><o:p></o:p></span></div>johnwkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10095532892217206265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20360462.post-33296199031671775002011-04-09T07:02:00.000-07:002014-08-31T18:59:31.332-07:00Donald Trump and his possible run for the presidency, taxes and trade.I personally am warming up to Donald Trump’s run for the presidency and for good reason … it’s time for our elected public trustees to promote America’s best interest as our founding fathers did, and which I believe Trump would do while telling our traitorous one world crowd to but-out! <br /><br />SEE: <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/14/norquist-critical-of-trumps-tariff-proposal/"><span style="color: blue;"><u>Norquist critical of Trump’s tariff proposal</u></span></a><br /><br /><br /><b><i>” Norquist, the founder of Americans for Tax Reform, told The Daily Caller. “Tariffs are not paid by Chinese people, they are paid by American people who buy Chinese products. It would raise the costs of everything you buy in the store. Most of those things you by from China and because you raised the price of one competitor, everybody else gets to raise their prices too.”</i></b><br /><br /><br />Stop making crap up Mr. Norquist! The fact is, taxes at our water’s edge, which our founding fathers used to promote <b><i>America’s best interests,</i></b> are to be paid at our federal government’s custom houses prior to the imports reaching our market place, and once paid, the imports are then allowed to advance to our market place. <br /><br /><br />In fact our founding fathers use of taxes at our water’s edge was very much responsible for America becoming the economic marvel of the world, until our modern day Congress became infested with disloyal money hungry members who were, and are at this very moment, willing to sell out America’s best interests to the highest international bidders and personally profit in the process! When these members of Congress talk about “free trade”, they are talking about allowing foreign manufactures to freely flood our market with untaxed cheap inferior goods, while Congress then freely taxes America’s manufactures, its industries and the property which working people have in their labor to fill its national treasury. I say “its treasury” because our scum on Capitol Hill believe our national treasury is their personal ATM, and the above is what they mean when they talk about “free trade”.<br /><br />By contrast, instead of taxing our domestic manufactures, industries and labor to fill our national treasury, our founding fathers taxed at our water’s edge and had foreigners paying for the privilege of doing business on America soil! What a novel idea … an America first policy!<br /><br />Madison sums up our founding father’s trade policy as follows during the creation of our <a href="http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&amp;fileName=001/llac001.db&amp;recNum=55"><span style="color: blue;"><u>Nation‘s first revenue raising Act</u></span></a><br /><br /><b><i>“…a national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be such a one, that, while it secures the object of revenue it shall not be oppressive to our constituents.”</i></b><br /><br />The Act went on to tax specifically chosen imported articles and not one dime was raised by taxing American domestic manufacturers, the working man’s wage, or the returns on invested capital ___ all of which contributed enormously to America becoming the economic marvel of the world! It should also be noted the Act was signed by George Washington on July 4th, 1789, as if to give England a second notice of America’s independence while exercising her power to tax foreign imports in order to fill our national treasury. <br /><br />In addition to imposing a specific amount of tax on specifically chosen articles imported, our founding fathers imposed an across-the-board tax on imports which was higher for imports arriving in foreign owned foreign built vessels, and discounted the tax for imports arriving in American owned American built ships: <br /><br /><b><i>"...a discount of ten percent on all duties imposed by this Act shall be allowed on such goods, wares, and merchandise as shall be imported in vessels built in the United States, and wholly the property of a citizen or citizens thereof."</i></b> SEE: <a href="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&amp;fileName=001/llsl001.db&amp;recNum=150"><span style="color: blue;"><u>An Act imposing duties on Tonnage July 20, 1789</u></span></a><br /><br /><br />This patriotic use of taxing at our water’s edge not only filled our national treasury, but gave American ship builders a hometown advantage and predictably resulted in America's ship building industry to flourish and America’s merchant marine to become the most powerful on the face of the planet. Unfortunately, last time I visited the docks in New York's Hell's Kitchen area, I was very saddened that I could no longer read the names on the docked ships as they all seemed to be foreign owned foreign built vessels...an irrefutable sign of America's decline traceable to the ravages of our international “free trade crowd” and a traitorous sellout of America’s sovereignty to the highest international bidders by members of Congress and our presidents, past and present! <br /><br /><br />Bottom line is, Donald Trump is correct on taxing at our water’s edge, just as our Founding Fathers were correct on taxing at our water’s edge, and the proof is, by the year1835 America was manufacturing everything from steam powered ships, to clothing spun and woven by powered machinery and the national debt [which included part of the revolutionary war debt] was completely extinguished and Congress enjoyed a surplus in the federal treasury from tariffs, duties, and customs. And so, by an <a href="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&amp;fileName=005/llsl005.db&amp;recNum=92"><span style="color: blue;"><u>Act of Congress in June of 1836</u></span></a> all surplus revenue in excess of $ 5,000,000 was decided to be distributed among the states, and eventually a total of $28,000,000 was distributed among the states by the rule of apportionment in the nature of interest free loans to the states to be recalled if and when Congress decided to make such a recall. <br /><br /><b><i>Norquist needs to stop making crap up!</i></b><br /><br /><br />As for Donald Trump, my advice to him would be to offer to return to our Constitution’s original tax plan which would end all taxes calculated from profits and gains now levied on our domestic manufactures and investors, and also end the current and slavish tax on the bread which working people earn. In addition, Donald needs to advance a no-nonsense method to extinguish annual deficits which creates a very real moment of accountably for members of Congress should they spend more than is brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes on judiciously selected articles of consumption. And how do we return to our Constitution’s <a href="http://townshipnews.org/?p=1360"><span style="color: blue;"><u>ORIGINAL TAX PLAN</u></span></a> as our founders intended it to operate? By adding the following to our Constitution:<br /><br /><b><i>Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.</i></b><br /><br /><br /><b>“SECTION 1.</b> The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money<br /><br /><i>NOTE: these words would return us to our founding father’s <a href="http://townshipnews.org/?p=1360"><u><b>ORIGINAL TAX PLAN</b></u></a> as they intended it to operate! These words would also remove the existing chains of taxation which Congress now uses to enslave America‘s businesses, its industrial and manufacturing base, and they would end the slavish tax which now confiscates the bread which working people have earned!</i><br /><br /><b>"SECTION 2.</b> Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year's deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit."<br /><br /><i>NOTE: Congress is to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties, [taxes at our water’s edge], and may also lay miscellaneous internal excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption. But if Congress spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes during the course of a fiscal year, then, and only then, is the apportioned tax to be laid.</i><br /><br /><b>"SECTION 3.</b> When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 1 of this Article, the Secretary of the United States Treasury shall, in a timely manner, calculate each State's apportioned share of the total sum being raised by dividing its total population size by the total population of the united states and multiplying that figure by the total being raised by Congress, and then provide the various State Congressional Delegations with a Bill notifying their State’s Executive and Legislature of its share of the total tax being collected and a final date by which said tax shall be paid into the United States Treasury."<br /><br /><b><i>NOTE: our founder’s fair share formula to extinguish a deficit is:<br /><br /> States’ Pop.<br /><br />---------------&nbsp;&nbsp; X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S SHARE<br /><br />U.S. Pop.</i></b><br /><br /><i>This fair share formula is to insure that the people of those states who contribute the lion’s share of the tax are guaranteed a representation in Congress proportionately equal to contribution, i.e., <u>representation with proportional obligation</u> an idea which our progressives hate with a passion!</i><br /><br /><b>"SECTION 4.</b>Each State shall be free to assume and pay its quota of the direct tax into the United States Treasury by a final date set by Congress, but if any State shall refuse or neglect to pay its quota, then Congress shall send forth its officers to assess and levy such State's proportion against the real property within the State with interest thereon at the rate of ((?)) per cent per annum, and against the individual owners of the taxable property. Provision shall be made for a 15% discount for those States paying their share by ((?))of the fiscal year in which the tax is laid, and a 10% discount for States paying by the final date set by Congress, such discount being to defray the States' cost of collection."<br /><br /><i>NOTE: This section respects the Tenth Amendment and allows each state to raise its share in its own chosen way in a time period set by Congress, but also allows the federal government to enter a state and collect the tax if a state is delinquent in meeting its obligation.</i><br /><br /><br />If Donald decides to promote the above, he will be the only candidate promoting a return to our constitutionally limited ‘Republican Form of Government’ as our founding fathers intended it to operate, and all other candidates will be advancing ways to subjugate the miracle which our founding fathers handed to us a a silver platter.<br /><br />Donald, please do not let us down!<br /><br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />Your pal from the South Bronx<br /><br />johnwk<br /><br /><br /><i>America, we have a problem, we have been attacked from within! We are being destroyed from within by a group of <a href="http://republicmainstreet.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/members-of-the-congressional-progressive-caucus-is-your-representative-a-member/"><span style="color: blue;"><u>DOMESTIC ENEMIES</u></span></a> who have managed to seize political power and whose mission is in fact to bring “change” to America ___ the dismantling of our military defensive power; the allowance of our borders to be overrun by foreign invaders, the diluting of our election process by allowing ineligible persons to vote; the destruction of our domestic manufacturing capabilities and a sellout to a one-world international free-trade crowd; the strangulation of our agricultural industry and ability to produce food under the guise of environmental necessity; the destruction of our nation’s health care delivery system, the looting of both our federal treasury and a mandatory retirement pension fund; the brainwashing of our nation’s children in government operated schools; the trashing of our nation’s traditions and moral values; the creation of an iron fisted control unauthorized by our written Constitution over America’s businesses and industries; the devaluation of our nation’s currency, and, the future enslavement of our children and grand children via unbridled debt and inflation, not to mention an iron fisted government which intends to rule their very lives!</i>johnwkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10095532892217206265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20360462.post-90879128008963647572010-11-28T12:33:00.000-08:002014-08-31T18:54:12.242-07:00Arthur Laffer’s flat tax: its pitfalls, inequality, and impediment to national prosperity.I know Glenn Beck likes Arthur Laffer who he recently had on his show to promote a flat income tax. Make no mistake, I too like Mr. Laffer who I believe loves his country. But I think it is extremely important to understand our Constitution’s original tax plan, as our founder’s intended it to operate, before offering suggestions which in effect circumvent the carefully thought our checks and balances our founding fathers wrote into our Constitution’s <a href="http://townshipnews.org/?p=1360"><b><u><span style="color: blue;">ORIGINAL TAX PLAN</span></u></b></a> which paved the way for America to become the most powerful and wealthiest nation on the planet, when it was followed. Let us take a look at a flat income tax.<br /><br /><br /><br />There are a number of irrefutable problems with a federal tax which would tax everyone on their “income” by calculating the share using a fixed percentage.<br /><br />1.<br /><br />The first problem encountered is a working definition of “ taxable income”. The current definition of “taxable income” is both arbitrary and capriciously invented from day to day by those who hold political power. <br /><br /><br />2.<br /><br />A tax calculated from “income” ___ which I imagine would include earnings realized by our productive members of society ___ is a tax under which government force is intentionally used in a fashion which forcefully penalizes and punishes our productive members of society for their productivity while it rewards the unproductive members of society by allowing them to escape from shouldering an equal burden in supporting the functions of our federal government.<br /><br /><br />3.<br /><br />An income tax imposed as a general tax among the States violates the Great Compromise made during the framing of our Constitution which commanded representation in Congress, but only with proportional obligation!. <br /><br />The delinquency in enforcing this rule has encouraged members of Congress to use their vote to engage in reckless spending and borrowing, knowing full well they will not have to return home with a bill for their constituents to pay when spending exceeds revenue raised, in order to balance the budget. <br /><br /><br /><br />In a nutshell, if Congress did not raise sufficient revenue from imposts and duties at our water’s edge, nor from internal “excise” taxes imposed upon “judiciously selected” articles of consumption, preferable articles of luxury, and found it necessary to borrow to meet its expenses, the deficit so created was to be extinguished using a general tax among the States that observed the rule of apportionment which predetermined each State’s share of a total sum being raised based each state’s population size.<br /><br /><br />This tax boils down to an equal per capita tax if the tax were laid directly upon the people! For example, if the tax were laid today and the people of New York each had to pay one dollar to meet its apportioned share of a total sum being raised by Congress, the people of Idaho would likewise only have to pay one dollar each if the tax were distributed evenly among the people living in Idaho. And, although New York’s total share of the tax would be far greater then that of Idaho because of New York’s larger population, we must remember New York is compensated by its larger representation in Congress when creating a deficit, which is also part of our Constitution’s fair share formula and commands representation with proportional obligation!<br /><br />Under a “flat income tax” the people of those states who would be contributing the lion’s share of the tax would not be receiving their representation in Congress proportionately equal to their State’s contribution.<br /><br />Socialists, “progressives”, and the friends of big government are great at spending other people’s money and always demand their one man one vote part of the Constitution when it comes to spending from the federal treasury. But when it comes time to fill the national treasury in a general tax among the states, as would be the case under the proposed “flat income tax”, they are relieved from the one vote one dollar part of the Constitution, which is also part of the apportionment formula and gave them their one man one vote. <br /><br />Our founding father’s fair share formula for both representation and taxation are as follows:<br /><br /><br />State`s Pop. <br />__________ X House membership (435) = State`s No.of Reps <br />U.S. Pop.<br /><br /><br /><br />State`s Pop.<br />_________ &nbsp;X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE<br />U.S. Pop.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />For the historical documentation concerning the rule of apportionment being applied to extinguish a deficit <a href="http://files.meetup.com/574256/IB%2309%20State%20Rate%20Tax.pdf"><u><span style="color: blue;">CLICK HERE</span></u></a>.<br /><br />Bottom line is, a “flat income tax“, if adopted, would not only continue to punish our nation’s productive citizens while relieving the unproductive from an equal burden in filling the national treasury, but it would continue to encourage big spenders in Congress who are relieved from our founder’s rule of representation with a proportional obligation.<br /><br />The question is, what would happen if New York State’s big spending Congressional Delegation had to return home with a bill for New York to pay an apportioned share to extinguish the 2010 federal deficit? I kinda think tea parties would change to tar and feather parties all over the country and our irresponsible big spenders in Congress would <a href="http://www.1776mag.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/tar-and-feather1.jpg"><u><span style="color: blue;">REAP THE REWARDS</span></u></a> of their tyrannical and big spending practices.<br /><br /><br />JWK<br /><br /><br />“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil <a href="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&amp;fileName=003/lled003.db&amp;recNum=254&amp;itemLink"><u><span style="color: blue;">3 Elliot’s, 243</span></u></a>, “Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” <a href="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&amp;fileName=003/lled003.db&amp;recNum=255&amp;itemLink"><u><span style="color: blue;">3 Elliot’s, 244</span></u></a>johnwkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10095532892217206265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20360462.post-19439743254151642492010-08-01T19:15:00.000-07:002014-08-31T18:49:08.893-07:00Neal Boortz does not answer the critics of the alleged fair tax!Neal Boortz, who promotes the fair tax, is alleged to address its critics in his second book on the subject. But to my understanding Mr. Boortz does not address the critics who say the alleged fair tax is a clear violation of our founding father’s rule requiring any general tax among the States is to be apportioned, so that taxation and representation are fixed by each state’s population size.<br /><br />I’m sure that Mr. Boortz is fully aware that our <b><i>progressive crowd</i></b><br />was behind the 16th Amendment who hated the rule of apportionment. And they hated the rule of apportionment with regard to federal taxation because it created a <b><i>fair share formula</i></b> preventing the federal government from entering the most productive States and compelling the most productive people therein to carry the federal burden of taxation while the less productive people would be relieved of the obligation to contribute into the federal treasury.<br /><br />The irrefutable fact is, on <a href="http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_712.asp"><b><u><span style="color: blue;">JULY 12TH of the Convention</span></u></b></a> which framed our Constitution, and after fierce debates concerning taxation and representation, Mr. MORRIS proposed a workable compromise, <b><i>“that taxation shall be in proportion to Representation."</i></b><br /><br /><br />Eventually this compromise became Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of our existing Constitution <b><i>“Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States…….”</i></b> The intention agreed upon with these words--- contrary to the myth advanced by our progressive sympathizing news media and government operated schools, that our Constitution made Black’s 3/5ths of a person --- the real intention for these words was the creation of two rules: one was intended to determine each state’s allotted number of representatives in Congress; and a second rule for filling the national treasury was agreed upon <b><i><u>if imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes were found insufficient to meet Congress’s expenditures, and Congress found it necessary to resort to a general tax among the States which reached property, real or personal.</u></i></b><br /><br />The two rules, considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution may be represented as follows one of which was intended to apply to any general tax among the States which reached the people or their property:<br /><b><i><br />State`s Pop.<br />__________ X&nbsp;Number of Reps. &nbsp;= State`s No. of Reps<br />U.S. Pop.<br /><br /><br /><br />State`s Pop.<br />__________ X&nbsp; SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE<br />U.S. Pop.<br /></i></b><br /><br />The irrefutable fact is, the alleged fair tax, just as “progressive” income taxation now does, circumvents our founding father’s intended rule for any general tax among the states. And it should further be noted that it violates the rule of apportionment because it is a “progressive” tax and is intended to rob from the productive the rewards of their success, and then redistribute that wealth to those who are unproductive. Even the ringleaders behind the alleged fair tax are proud to announce the tax is a “progressive” tax, see: <a href="http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main"><b><u><span style="color: blue;">What is the FairTax plan?</span></u></b></a><br /><br /><br /><i>“The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including <b>a progressive</b> national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment“.</i><br /><br /><br />In any event, if we adopted the following 32 words to our Constitution, many of the sufferings we now experience by Congress’ doings would come to a screeching halt.<br /><br /><b><i>The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money</i></b><br /><br /><br /><br />BTW, the apportioned tax was intended to be used to extinguish deficits! <a href="http://files.meetup.com/574256/IB%2309%20State%20Rate%20Tax.pdf"><b><u><span style="color: blue;">CLICK HERE FOR DOCUMENTATION</span></u></b></a> In other words, we don’t need no stinking balanced budget amendment. We need to follow our Constitution and the documented intentions under which it was adopted!<br /><br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />JWK<br /><br /><b><i><span style="font-size: medium;">“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil” </span></i></b><a href="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&amp;fileName=003/lled003.db&amp;recNum=254&amp;itemLink"><b><u><span style="color: blue; font-size: medium;">3 Elliot’s, 243</span></u></b></a><span style="font-size: medium;">, <b><i>“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax”</i></b></span><a href="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&amp;fileName=003/lled003.db&amp;recNum=255&amp;itemLink"><b><u><span style="color: blue; font-size: medium;">3 Elliot’s, 244</span></u></b></a><span style="font-size: medium;"> ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.</span> johnwkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10095532892217206265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20360462.post-1514180111895989602007-05-23T20:27:00.000-07:002014-08-31T18:32:43.827-07:00H.R.25 would violate Constitution's rule of apportionment !<b>BACKGROUND</b><br /><br />Under the Articles of Confederation a general across-the- board tax to fill the national treasury was agreed upon. The amount to be contributed by each state was to be calculated from each state’s assessed land value and the improvements thereon.<br /><br />Article VIII. of the Articles of Confederation states:<br /><br /><i>“All charges of war, and all other expences that shall be incurred for the common defence or general welfare, and allowed by the united states in congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several states in proportion to the value of all land within each state, granted to or surveyed for any Person, as such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated according to such mode as the united states in congress assembled, shall from time to time direct and appoint.<br /><br />The taxes for paying that proportion shall be laid and levied by the authority and direction of the legislatures of the several states within the time agreed upon by the united states in congress assembled.” </i><br /><br />Each state was to make its contribution into the common treasury based upon the value of land within the state, and the value of land included an estimate of the “buildings and improvements thereon”. Taxes calculated from the value of property, real and personal, have always been considered to be direct taxation since the birth of our nation.<br /><br />During the framing of our Constitution, states with superior wealth objected to allowing a power of taxation being granted which was based upon wealth and would leave them carrying more of the federal tax burden than poorer states. The wealthier Southern States felt that some compensation in their voting strength was necessary if they were to contribute a larger share of the federal tax burden. <br /><br />Eventually, a compromise was reached [Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3] “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States…….” The intention being, which is contrary to the popular myth that it made Blacks 3/5 of a person, was an agreed upon rule determining each states’ voting strength in Congress Assembled, and also determined each states’ share of a tax to be laid, <b><i>if imposts, duties [external taxes], and miscellaneous internal excise taxes were found insufficient to meet Congress`s expenses.</i></b><br /><br /><br />The two rules regarding apportionment, considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution may be expressed as follows: <br /><b><br />State`s Pop.<br />__________&nbsp; X&nbsp; Total number of Reps. &nbsp;in &nbsp;House&nbsp; <br /><br />U.S. Pop. <br /><br /><br /><br />State`s Pop.<br /><br />-----------------&nbsp;&nbsp; X &nbsp;SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE <br /><br />U.S. Pop.</b><br /><br />It should also be noted that during the ratification of our Constitution the above stated intentions were again noted on various occasions, e.g.: Mr. George Nicholas said: "the proportion of taxes is fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of territory, or fertility of soil. . . . Each State [*568] will know, from its population, its proportion of any <b>general tax.</b> As it was justly observed by the gentleman over the way, (Mr. Randolph), they cannot possibly exceed that proportion; they are limited and restrained expressly to it. The state legislatures have no check of this kind. Their power is uncontrolled." 3 Elliot, 243, 244. <br /><br />Mr. Madison remarked that "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public." 3 Elliot, 255. <br /><br />After determining a total sum needed and each state’s apportioned share was calculated, each state’s Congressional Delegation was to return to their own state with a bill to extinguish their state’s share of the apportioned tax. Each state`s share was based upon its number of votes in Congress and the various state legislatures and Governors were intended to retain the responsibility of having to meet that financial responsibility in their own chosen way, <b><i>which would prevent Congress from entering the states, taxing the people directly, and manipulating who shall pay the federal tax burden </i></b><br /><br />Here are two examples of the rule of apportionment being applied by Congress:<br /><br /><a href="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&amp;fileName=003/llsl003.db&amp;recNum=94"><u>Act laying a direct tax for $3 million</u></a> August 2, 1813, and each state’s share of the tax.<br /><br /><a href="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&amp;fileName=003/llsl003.db&amp;recNum=112"><u>Section 7 of direct tax of 1813</u></a> allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions. <br /><br />Bottom line is, the intended protection was that if imposts, duties [external taxes] and assorted internal excise taxes which Congress was authorized to lay were found insufficient to fill the national treasury, and a general tax among the states was found necessary to meet Congress’s exigencies, and especially in a wealth based tax being used as a primary source to fill the national treasury, those states carrying the lion’s share of such a tax would be compensated by a vote in Congress Assembled proportionately equal to their financial contribution___ a vote to be exercised in determining how their money would be spent by Congress! <br /><br />This is what federalism is all about, a specific rule for direct taxation and the States retaining the power to meet their burden in their own chosen way! Of course, socialists and the friends of our Washington Establishment’s political plum job empire hate the rule of apportionment as it creates a very real moment of accountability [the various state Governors and Legislatures being burdened with extinguishing deficits created by Congress], and prevents Congress from bribing voters with favorable tax legislation! <br /><br />Supporters of H.R. 25, the alleged fair tax, and the socialists who worked very hard to adopt the 16th Amendment, both have something very much in common ___ the subjugation of the rule of apportionment by which the people of the various states agreed they would contribute into the common treasury if imposts, duties [external taxes] and miscellaneous excise taxes [inland taxes which included taxes on specific articles of consumption] were found insufficient to meet Congress’s expenditures. <br /><br />But the difference between the socialists who promoted the 16th Amendment and those who now promote the alleged fair tax is this. <br /><br />The socialists who promoted the 16th Amendment were up front and promoted exactly what they wanted:<br /><br /><b><i>The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. </i></b><br /><br />But the weasels behind H.R. 25, who are obviously the friends of big government, are not being up front in saying exactly what they want, which is:<br /><br /><b><i>The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes within the various states on the sale of property, real and personal, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. </i></b><br /><br />Instead of saying exactly what they want, direct access to the people’s property, real and personal, in addition to laying taxes calculated from “incomes”, they hide their evil by calling it the “fairtax“! But when all is said and done, H.R. 25 is the same socialistic type taxing pig we now have but in a different dress and would extend Congress‘s taxing power to property, real and personal.! <br /><br />The only tax reform freedom loving people need is to have the following words added to their Constitution, bringing us back to our <a href="http://usafoundingfathers.blogspot.com/2006/03/founding-fathers-original-tax-plan.html"><u>FOUNDING FATHER’S ORIGINAL TAX PLAN</u></a> which was created by tax rebels and designed to control the actions of Congress, rather than having Congress control the people:<br /><br /><b><i>The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money </i></b><br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />JWKjohnwkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10095532892217206265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20360462.post-1141711687651801682006-03-06T21:29:00.000-08:002014-08-31T18:05:06.581-07:00FOUNDING FATHER'S ORIGINAL TAX PLANStatement of John William Kurowski<br />Founder Of The<br />American Constitutional Research Service<br />Before the<br />Committee on Ways and Means<br />United States House of Representatives<br /><br />June 1995<br /><br />Mr. Chairman and Members of this Committee:<br /><br />The subject of tax reform was extensively debated by the Founders of our country. I do not know if other participants in these Hearings have take the time to research the accounts of these historical debates when formulating the suggestions they will present to this Committee, but, having researched the Founders' original tax reform package, I am inclined to believe its fundamental principals are as valid today as when they were put into practice over two hundred years ago.<br /><br />Our nation's first revenue raising Act was "...in a certain sense a second Declaration of Independence; and by a coincidence which could not have been more striking or more significant, it was approved by President Washington on the fourth day of July, 1789." [See, Twenty Years of Congress, James G. Blaine, 1884, Vol. 1, page 185]<br /><br />James Madison, in discussing this Act before Congress identified a fundamental principal concerning the power delegated to Congress to lay and collect taxes:<br /><br />"...a national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be<br />such a one, that, while it secures the object of revenue it shall not be<br />oppressive to our constituents."<br /><br />The Act went on to imposed taxes, not on Congress' constituents, but on specific "goods, wares, and merchandise, imported into the United States", and not one dime was raised under the Act by internal taxation! Internal taxes were frowned upon by the Founders, especially when a national revenue could be had by requiring foreigners to pay for the privilege of doing business on American soil!<br /><br />Jefferson, in his Second Annual Message (December 15, 1802) states:<br /><br />"In the department of finance it is with pleasure I inform you<br />that the receipts of external duties for the last twelve months have<br />exceeded those of any former year, and that the ratio of increase has<br />been also greater than usual. This has enabled us to answer all the<br />regular exigencies of government, to pay from the treasury in one year<br />upward of eight millions of dollars, principal and interest, of the<br />public debt, exclusive of upward of one million paid by the sale of bank<br />stock, and making in the whole a reduction of nearly five millions and a<br />half of principal; and to have now in the treasury four millions and a<br />half of dollars, which are in a course of application to a further<br />discharge of debt and current demands." [emphasis added]<br /><br />Imagine...all this in consequence of "external duties"!<br /><br />In Jefferson's Second Inaugural Address (March 4, 1805, he points out:<br /><br />"At home, fellow citizens, you best know whether we have done well<br />or ill. The suppression of unnecessary offices, of useless<br />establishments and expenses, enabled us to discontinue our internal<br />taxes. These covering our land with officers, and opening our doors to<br />their intrusions, had already begun that process of domiciliary vexation<br />which, once entered, is scarcely to be restrained from reaching<br />successively every article of produce and property...<br /><br />"The remaining revenue on the consumption of foreign articles, is<br />paid cheerfully by those who can afford to add foreign luxuries to<br />domestic comforts, being collected on our seaboards and frontiers only,<br />and incorporated with the transactions of our mercantile citizens, it<br />may be the pleasure and pride of an American to ask, what farmer, what<br />mechanic, what laborer, ever sees a tax-gatherer of the United States?"<br />[emphasis added]<br /><br />Although the national sales tax proposals appear to be somewhat fairer than existing taxation, each would do ill to our nation as they are all based upon internal taxation, which would ultimately increases the cost of goods manufactured on American soil; burden the American Citizen in its collection; and, are to be paid by the "farmer, mechanic, laborer", etc., who will continue to see the intrusion of the "tax-gatherer of the United States" if such a system is adopted!<br /><br />In view of the undesirable effects of an internal national sales tax, perhaps it is wise to further study the Founder's plan and learn how imposts and duties (external taxation) were successfully used to fill the national treasury, encourage domestic manufacturing and assist in building a strong industrial base.<br /><br />In addition to imposing a specific amount of tax on specific articles of<br />consumption imported, the first revenue raising Act also imposed an across- the-board tax on imports which was higher for imports shipped in foreign owned foreign built vessels, and discounted the tax for imports arriving in American owned American built ships:<br /><br />"...a discount of ten percent on all duties imposed by this Act<br />shall be allowed on such goods, wares, and merchandise as shall be<br />imported in vessels built in the United States, and wholly the<br />property of a citizen or citizens thereof."<br /><br />This patriotic and skillful use of external taxation not only filled our national treasury, but gave American ship builders a hometown advantage and predictably resulted in America's merchant marine becoming the most powerful on the face of the planet. Unfortunately, today when I visit the docks in New York's Hell's Kitchen area, I am saddened that I can no longer read the names on the docked ships as they all seem to now be foreign owned foreign built vessels...an irrefutable sign of America's decline traceable to the acceptance of thirty pieces of silver.<br /><br />Yes, there was a day when our national treasury was gladly filled by foreigners paying for the opportunity to do business on American soil. But this was when members of Congress, and those running for Office, put American interests first and would have considered the NAFTA, GATT and the WTO as acts of sedition, and would have tarred and feathered those participating in the surrender of America's sovereignty. <br /><br />A national sales tax plan which omits external taxation is a principal source to fill our national treasury, is in fact a surrender of national sovereignty to the advantage of foreign interests!<br /><br /><strong>A Second Source To Fill The Treasury</strong><br /><br />Having identified imposts and duties (external taxes) as being the<br />Founder's intended primary source to fill our national treasury, I will now<br />turn to their intended internal consumption tax plan.<br /><br />An across the board national sales tax would unquestionably increase the<br />cost of production on American soil, as previously pointed out. To avoid<br />this, and other unwanted effects of an across the board national sales tax,<br />common sense dictates we must exclude from the list of taxable items, tools of production, supplies necessary to conduct business, services needed to sustain business, and the necessities of life (food, shelter, clothing, medical expenses) i.e. all those items which makes labor possible must also be excluded.<br /><br />In simple language, a consumption tax plan ought to be limited to articles of luxury, and each article must be individually selected by Congress and the appropriate amount of tax must be determined for each specific item chose, just as was done in the first revenue Act of our country!<br /><br />By limiting the tax to articles of luxury, and requiring each article to be specifically chosen and the appropriate amount of tax determined by Congress, a self regulating check and balance is imposed upon Congress. If Congress does its job properly and the nation as a whole is productive and prosperous, the purchase of articles of luxury will undoubtedly increase, and with it, the flow of revenue into the common treasury! But, if Congress' policies become burdensome and its regulatory requirements upon business, industry and our nation's labor force inhibit a hearty economy, or any particular article is excessively taxed, the first sign would be in a decline in the flow of revenue into the national treasury!<br /><br />Thus, the free market place determines the limit of taxation under the<br />Founder's internal consumption tax plan, and it establishes a self regulating<br />gauge beyond the reach of Congress' manipulation!<br /><br />As Hamilton said, in regard to taxes on consumption, they:<br /><br />"... may be compared to a fluid, which will in time find its level<br />with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by<br />each citizen will in a degree be by his own option, and can be<br />regulated by an attention to his own resources. The rich may be<br />extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may<br />always be avoided by judicious selection of objects proper for<br />such impositions ... It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles<br />of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security<br />against excess. They prescribe their own limit, which can not be<br />exceeded without defeating the end proposed that is, an extension<br />of the revenue." [No. 21 of the Federalist, emphasis added.]<br /><br /><strong>Balancing the Budget</strong><br /><br />Still one more question remains to be answered: what is to be done if insufficient revenue is raised from external and internal taxes on consumption?<br /><br />Once again the Founder's plan shines bright above all contemporary suggestions. Careful research into our Nation's early legislative history reveals the Framers did in fact provide Congress with an emergency power to be used if deficits should arise. And the wisdom of the Framer's method, unlike the proposed balanced budget amendment (S.J. RES.1), contains a brilliant mechanism which would abruptly end Congress' current profligate spending habits!<br /><br />Under the Framer's plan, whenever the monies arising from Congress' normal taxing powers (imposts duties and excises) are found insufficient to fund federal expenditures during a fiscal year, and a deficit is produced by Congress borrowing to finance expenditures, Congress must then use its direct taxing power at the beginning of next fiscal year to raise an amount sufficient to retire this deficit.<br /><br />Congress is required to follow the rules of apportionment when imposing this tax, and bills each state for a share of the deficit. Each State must contribute a share of the total deficit in proportion to its allotted number of Representatives as set forth in Article I, Section 2, clause 3, of the United Constitution. The more votes a State exercises in the House, the larger is its share toward extinguishing a deficit . . . representation with proportional obligation!<br /><br />The chart below is based on a total House membership of 435:<br /><br />STATE.........NO. OF REPRESENTATIVES.............SHARE OF DEFICIT <br /><br />NEW YORK.............31.................................31/435's<br />MARYLAND..............8..................................8/435's<br />CALIFORNIA...........52.................................52/435's<br />IDAHO.......................2..................................2/435's<br />FLORIDA.................23.................................23/435's<br />etc..............................................................<br /><strong>FOUNDING FATHERS' FAIR SHARE FORMULA</strong><br /><br /><i>EDITOR'S NOTE: the fair share formula may be expressed as follows:<br /><br /><b>State`s Pop. <br /><br />--------------- X&nbsp; SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE <br /><br />U.S. Pop.</b></i><br /><br /><br />The states are left free to raise their share of the tax in their own way, within a time period set by Congress. But if any state shall neglect to pay its share, then Congress must send forth its officers to assess and levy that state's apportioned share, together with interest thereon.<br /><br /><strong>Legislative History</strong><br /><br />This method of extinguishing deficits appears in seven of the ratification documents which gave life to the United States Constitution. The first emergency direct tax was imposed in 1798, to extinguish part of the Revolutionary War debt. It was later used during the War of 1812, and also to extinguish deficits during the Civil War.<br /><br />The Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution did not repeal or alter Congress' power, or obligation, to impose the emergency direct tax should a deficit arise. The power of Congress to impose a direct tax still exists, and direct taxes are still required to be apportioned among the states, as pointed out by the United States Supreme Court [see Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 103, (1916; Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920); and, Bromely v. McCaughn, 280 U.S. 124 (1929). Also see Congressional Research Service Report No. 84-168 A 784/275, which was updated September 26, 1984]. <br /><br /><strong>Big Advantages</strong><br /><br />There is no smoke and mirrors with the 'FAIR-SHARE' method of balancing the budget. The emergency direct tax is required to be imposed whenever Congress closes a fiscal year with a deficit. The structural mechanism which would immediately bring fiscal sanity to Congress is the requirement of having Congress send a bill to the governor of each state, notifying him to remit his state's apportioned share toward extinguishing the deficit created during the year by Congress; the governors and state legislators being left with the burden of having to raise this money, and to send it off to Washington, D.C.<br /><br />Picture, for a moment, the expression on the faces of the Governor of New York and the New York State Legislature, if New York should receive a bill for its apportioned share [31/435] of the 1995 federal deficit. This threat would create a compelling incentive for the Governor of each state, and the various state legislatures, to keep a jealous eye on the spending habits of their Congressional Delegation . . . it would require the fiscal accountability which the state governments once demanded from their Senate and House Members!<br /><br />In addition, because each state's share of the tax burden is determined by a fixed rule, similar to that which determines the House membership size of each state, a barrier is erected preventing the kind of mischief which Congress now practices, i.e., discriminatory tax legislation; pork-barrel favoritism; special interest lobbying, etc.<br /><br /><strong>Bottom Line</strong><br /><br />The Framers of the Constitution provided a specific method to extinguish anticipated deficits through an emergency direct tax. Hamilton, in No. 36 of The Federalist Papers, reminds us:<br /><br />"Let it be recollected that the proportion of these taxes is<br />not to be left to the discretion of the national legislature, but<br />is to be determined by the number of each State, as described in<br />the second section of first article [United States Constitution]. <br />An actual census or enumeration of the people must furnish a rule,<br />a circumstance which effectively shuts the door to partiality or<br />oppression. The abuse of this power of taxation seems to have<br />been provided against with guarded circumspection." (EMPHASIS<br />ADDED)<br /><br />The rule of apportionment was written into our constitution to remedy a major defect associated with "democracies", which Madison points out in No. 10 of The Federalist Papers:<br /><br />"... have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have<br />ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights<br />of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as<br />they have been violent in their deaths."<br /><br />And so, the Founding Fathers formed a Constitutional Republic to avoid<br />the predictable disastrous consequences of democracy.<br /><br />The intended use of the emergency direct taxing power to extinguish<br />deficits is not only far superior to any of the proposed balanced budget<br />amendments being offered . . . it is already part of our Constitution. The<br />method in text form is as follows:<br /><br /><br /><strong>The Fair Share Balanced Budget Method</strong><br /><br /><strong><br /> "A R T I C L E (?)"</strong><br /><br /><br />"SECTION 1. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year's deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit."<br /><br />"SECTION 2. When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 1 of this Article, Congress shall immediately calculate each State's apportioned share of the tax based upon its number of Representatives as allotted by the Constitution, and then notify the Executive of each State of its apportioned share of the total tax being collected and a final date by which said tax shall be paid into the United States Treasury."<br /><br />"SECTION 3. Each State shall be free to assume and pay its quota of the direct tax into the United States Treasury by the final date set by Congress, but if any State shall refuse or neglect to pay its quota, then Congress shall send forth its officers to assess and levy such State's proportion against the real property within the State with interest thereon at the rate of ((?)) per cent per annum, and against the individual owners of such property. Provision shall be made for a 15% discount for those States paying their share by ((?))of the fiscal year in which the tax is laid, and a 10% discount for States paying by the final date set by Congress, such discount being to defray the States' cost of collection."<br /><br />************<br /><br />Conclusion<br /><br />There are participants at this Hearing, and many political pundits appearing on talk shows across our country, who are far more articulate than I in identifying the glaring defects and dishonest nature of income taxation, whether flat or progressive. Likewise, there is also an abundant supply of those presenting well rehearsed arguments against an across the board national sales tax, and have displayed their rhetorical skills quite admirably. But who, I ask, has made a substantial argument against the Founding Father's original tax reform package?<br /><br />Perhaps our only problem in regard to tax reform is that we, as a nation, have lost touch with the original intent and wisdom of those who framed and ratified our Constitution...such negligence culminating in our current dilemma.<br /><br />In closing Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this time to thank you and your staff for allowing me this opportunity to present my humble opinion on a subject of such great importance.johnwkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10095532892217206265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20360462.post-61492419247396806092011-07-03T20:51:00.000-07:002014-08-31T18:00:40.962-07:00The big myth: the Sixteenth Amendment repealed apportionment of direct taxesDo a little research on the internet with regard to our Constitution’s rule requiring direct taxes to be apportioned among the States and you will find countless sources spreading a myth that the Sixteenth Amendment repealed that requirement! Many of those who offer tax reform proposals, especially those who would circumvent the very intentions for which the rule of apportionment was adopted, constantly misinform the public about the rule of apportionment in addition to perpetrating the myth that the Sixteenth Amendment repealed the rule requiring any general tax laid among the States would have to be laid by the rule of apportionment. <br /><br />I once believed this myth but after a very extensive research project at the University of Maryland, I learned I had been lied to! Now, let us look at some facts concerning this myth.<br /><br />The 16th Amendment does not mention “direct” taxes, and, there is no language in the 16th Amendment repealing Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 which states: <b><i>” No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”</i></b><br /><br /><br />Prior to the adoption of the 16th Amendment our Supreme Court repeatedly held that Congress had power to lay and collect a tax calculated from “income’ without having to apportion such a tax. See, for example, Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 502, (1880) involving a challenge that the tax calculated from income laid during the war between the States was a direct tax, and therefore required an apportionment, in which the Court upheld the tax as not being direct! Also see FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107 (1911), which upheld a tax calculated from profits and gains without apportionment. <br /><br />And so, from the historical evidence (the above S.C. opinions) it seems quite clear that the 16th amendment merely confirmed Congress always had power to lay and collect taxes calculated from incomes without having to apportion the tax, and that power was found in Congress’ power to lay and collect excise taxes, and the 16th Amendment granted no new power of taxation. This line of reasoning seems to be supported by what the SC stated in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. (1916):<br /><br /><b><i>"...by the previous ruling (the previous ruling was Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. 1916), it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of INDIRECT taxation to which it inherently belonged.."</i></b><br /><br />As to direct taxes, see BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929) in which the Supreme Court states in crystal clear language <b><i>“As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.”</i></b><br /><br />In addition see: Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920) , in which the Court had already pointed out: <br /><br /><b><i>“[T]his amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes....This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.”</i></b><br /><br />And so, we learn that direct taxes are still required to be apportioned.<br /><br /><b>And now, let us explore the stated intentions of our founding fathers regarding the rule of apportionment as applied to taxation?</b><br /><br />Our founding fathers intended that Congress raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties (taxes at our water’s edge) and if need be, internal “excise” taxes on judiciously selected articles of consumption. But if these sources were found insufficient for the "Public Exigencies", and a deficit arose, then, and only then was a general tax to be laid among the states for a specific sum of revenue and then the rule of apportionment was intended to guarantee to the people of those States who paid the lion’s share of the tax, a proportionate representation in Congress proportionately equal to their contribution! But don’t take my word for it, let our founding fathers speak!<br /><br />See: <a href="http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratnh.asp"><span style="color: blue;"><u><b>Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire; June 21, 1788</b></u></span></a> Similar language is contained in several of the other State Ratification documents.<br /><br /><b><i>"Fourthly That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the money arising from Impost, Excise and their other resources are insufficient for the Publick Exigencies; nor then, until Congress shall have first made a Requisition upon the States, to Assess, Levy, &amp; pay their respective proportions, of such requisitions agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way &amp; manner as the Legislature of the State shall think best and in such Case if any State shall neglect, then Congress may Assess &amp; Levy such States proportion together with the Interest thereon at the rate of six per Cent per Annum from the Time of payment prescribed in such requisition-</i></b><br /><br /><br />And Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment says:<br /><br /><br /><b><i>With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation</i></b> <a href="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&amp;fileName=004/lled004.db&amp;recNum=317&amp;itemLink"><span style="color: blue;"><u><b>4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6</b></u></span></a><br /><br />Also see:<br /><br /><b><i>“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”</i></b> <a href="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&amp;fileName=003/lled003.db&amp;recNum=254&amp;itemLink"><span style="color: blue;"><u><b>3 Elliot’s, 243</b></u></span></a> ,<b><i>“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax”</i></b> <a href="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&amp;fileName=003/lled003.db&amp;recNum=255&amp;itemLink"><span style="color: blue;"><u><b>3 Elliot’s, 244</b></u></span></a> ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution. <br /><br />Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s <b><i>“general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public."</i></b><a href="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&amp;fileName=003/lled003.db&amp;recNum=266&amp;itemLink"><span style="color: blue;"><u><b>3 Elliot, 255</b></u></span></a><br /><br />And if there is any question as to our founding fathers specifically intending the rule of apportionment being adopted to insure those States who pay the lion’s share under a general tax are guaranteed a representation in Congress proportionately equal to their contribution, Mr. PENDLETON explains in very clear language:<br /><br /><b><i>“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, [under the Articles of Confederaltion] she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”</i></b> <a href="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&amp;fileName=003/lled003.db&amp;recNum=52"><span style="color: blue;"><u><b>3 Elliot’s 41</b></u></span></a><br /><br /><br />And just what is the founder's formula for a general tax among the States?<br /><br /><b><br />States’ Pop.<br /><br />-----------------&nbsp; X&nbsp;&nbsp; SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S SHARE<br /><br />U.S. Pop.</b><br /><br /><br />One of the reasons our Washington Establishment hates the rule of apportionment for any general tax laid among the States is that it removes the class warfare game from Congress' hands which is used as a distraction to divide and conquer while Congress plunders what America’s businesses and labor have produced.<br /><br />Regards,<br />JWK<br /><br /><br /><b><i>Our tyrants in Washington force the productive to pay income taxes so they can spread their wealth and buy votes, but the Washington Establishment does not force their beloved 40 % who pay no income taxes to work for the taxes they get</i></b>___ Our Washington Establishment’s Republican/Democrat Marxist game planjohnwkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10095532892217206265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20360462.post-36917430757627752262014-08-31T17:41:00.000-07:002014-08-31T17:41:40.083-07:00Big media says, Founders favored government run health care in 1789!<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />See: <a href="http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/01/17/congress-passes-socialized-medicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-in-1798/"><u><b>Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance -In 1798</b></u></a><br /><br />Just for the record, I addressed this very issue back in 2009 when another progressive tried to pretend our Founders MANDATED health insurance in 1798. But like a vampire which can't be killed, the same <b><i>big lie</i></b> returns over and over again and is panhandled by our big progressive loving media. <br /><br />To begin with, <a href="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&amp;fileName=001/llsl001.db&amp;recNum=728"><u><b>An Act for the relief of sick and disable seamen</b></u></a> which Rick Ungar refers to was directed at licensed American flag ships engaged in commerce among the States and/or with foreign nations, and also directed at our Navy and its personnel. It had nothing to do with the kind of despotic intrusion our federal government is now attempting with regard to the American People’s decisions and choices regarding their health care needs. <br /><br />In spite of the actual limitations of the act, the crackpot at forbes, Rick Ungar, writes: <b>” The law authorized the creation of a government operated marine hospital service and mandated that <i>privately</i> employed sailors be required to purchase health care insurance.”</b><br /><br />What Rick Ungar fails to tell his readers is, the sailors he refers to are not merely privately employed sailors, but are employed on ships licensed by the United States and engaged in commerce among the States and/or with foreign nations. Last time I read our Constitution it declares that Congress has power to regulate commerce <i><b>among the states and with foreign nations</b></i>. <br /><br />The legislation reads: <br /><br /><b><i><br />1 § 1. Be it enacted ……. That from and after the first day of September next, the master or owner of every ship or vessel of the United States, arriving from a foreign port into any port of the United States, shall ….. <br /><br />§ 2. That from and after the first day of September next, no collector shall grant to any ship or vessel whose enrollment or license for carrying on the coasting trade has expired, a new enrollment or license, before the master of such ship or vessel shall first render a true account to the collector, of the number of seamen, and the time they have severally been employed on board such ship or vessel, during the continuance of the license which has so expired, and pay to such collector twenty cents per month for every month such seamen have been severally employed as aforesaid ; which sum the said master is hereby authorized to retain out of the wages of such seamen. And if any such master shall render a false account of the number of men, and the length of time they have severally been employed, as is herein required, he shall forfeit and pay one hundred dollars.</i></b><br /><br /><br />It is also to be noted that our beloved Washington Post jumps on Rick Ungar’s bandwagon with an article titled <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/01/founding_fathers_favored_gover.html"><u><b>Newsflash: Founders favored government run health care</b></u></a> by Greg Sargent, 01/20/2011 <br /><br />And this propagandist, similar to Rick Ungar, likewise fails to note the act was not directed at “government run health care“, but rather, how to deal with the health care needs of sailors employed on ships licensed by the United States engaged in commerce among the States and with foreign nations . . . a specific subject matter which Congress was granted authority over. <br /><br />And instead of consulting “a professor of history who specializes in the early republic” Greg Sargent ought to have consulted our founding fathers to determine their intentions as documented in the <a href="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&amp;fileName=008/llac008.db&amp;recNum=86"><u><b>debates creating the act</b></u></a>. But heck, why quote the documented intentions and beliefs under which the Act was adopted when one can get a “professor” to weave a tale by association to give credibility to a fraud now being perpetrated upon the American? The fraud being, that Congress has been granted <b><i>power to regulate the American People’s decisions and choices regarding their health care needs.</i></b><br /><br />JWK <br /><br /><br /><b><i>Health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a <a href="http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?ContentID=166&amp;ParentID=0&amp;SectionID=4&amp;SectionTree=4&amp;lnk=b&amp;ItemID=164"><u><b>PROGRESSIVE</b></u></a>majority vote in Congress!</i></b>johnwkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10095532892217206265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20360462.post-1145227498119696272011-08-02T18:35:00.000-07:002014-08-31T17:37:05.298-07:00Debt limit deal is not “A Tea Party Triumph” as big media reports!SEE: <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903341404576480653492061150.html"><span style="color: blue;"><u><b>A Tea Party Triumph</b></u></span></a><br /><br /><b>THE WALL STREET JOURNAL</b><br /><br /><b><i>"The tea partiers pride themselves on adhering to the Constitution, which was intended to make political change difficult. Yet in this deal they've forced both parties to make the biggest spending cuts in 15 years, with more cuts likely next year."</i></b> <br /><br />Unfortunately, the truth is, this is not a Tea Party Triumph nor a victory for the American People, especially when Article 1, Section 5 of our Constitution is violated which requires at a minimum, a majority of the House and Senate members to be present, “to do Business“, which is the “making of law" and is significantly different from passing a law which only requires a vote. <br /><br />This bill establishing a “committee of 12” to make law, allowed to be passed with the help of “Republicans“, is part of Obama’s fundamental transformation of our system of government and intended to exclude the people’s elected members of Congress from the "making of law", and only allows them in on the action with an up or down vote after a Washington Establishment’s hand picked inside crowd of 12 makes the law.<br /><br />Keep in mind this hand pick gang does not represent each and every State in the making of law, nor does it represent the various congressional districts within the States, when making law, and thus violates the very essences of our “Republican Form of Government” guaranteed under Article 4 Section 4 of our Constitution.<br /><br />But getting back to Article 1, Section 5 and its requirement that a “Majority” of members of both houses are present “to do Business“, this provision was specifically debated during the framing of our Constitution and it was intended to forbid <b><i>“a small number of members of the two Houses to make laws”</i></b> ___ SEE for example: <a href="http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_810.asp"><span style="color: blue;"><u><b>MADISON‘S NOTES</b></u></span></a><br /><b>Col. MASON</b><br /><br /><b><i>“This is a valuable &amp; necessary part of the plan. In this extended Country, embracing so great a diversity of interests, it would be dangerous to the distant parts to allow a small number of members of the two Houses to make laws. The Central States could always take care to be on the Spot and by meeting earlier than the distant ones, or wearying their patience, and outstaying them, could carry such measures as they pleased. He admitted that inconveniences might spring from the secession of a small number: But he had also known good produced by an apprehension, of it. He had known a paper emission prevented by that cause in Virginia. He thought the Constitution as now moulded was founded on sound principles, and was disposed to put into it extensive powers. At the same time he wished to guard agst. abuses as much as possible. If the Legislature should be able to reduce the number at all, it might reduce it as low as it pleased &amp; the U. States might be governed by a Juncto- A majority of the number which had been agreed on, was so few that he feared it would be made an objection agst. the plan.”</i></b><br /><br /><br />Now, under this 12 member committee crap, who are to be selected by the Washington Establishment, the various States , and, the people of the various congressional districts within the States, are not all represented in the <b><i>making of law,</i></b> which is not only a violation of the very intention for which Article 1, Section 5 was adopted, but it is a direct assault upon our <b><i>“Republican Form of Government”</i></b> guaranteed under Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution of the united States in that the people’s representatives are intentionally excluded from the law making process, and may only vote on the adoption of a law after it is made.<br /><br />And then what happens? It has to be passed so the people can find out what’s in it. Have we not learned this dirty little trick? <br /><br />On this day, August 2nd, 2011, a giant step in Obama’s fundamental transformation of our system of government has taken place and every member in the Senate who voted YEA, is complicit in this subversive act of tyranny!<br /><br /><br /><br />JWK<br />A longtime Tea Party admirer! <br /><br /><br /><i>America we have a problem! We have a group of <a href="http://republicmainstreet.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/members-of-the-congressional-progressive-caucus-is-your-representative-a-member/"><span style="color: blue;"><u><b>DOMESTIC ENEMIES</b></u></span></a> who have managed to seize political power and whose mission is in fact to bring “change” to America ___ the dismantling of our military defensive power; the allowance of our borders to be overrun by foreign invaders, the diluting of our election process by allowing ineligible persons to vote; <b>the circumvention of our Republican Form of Government which is now replace with a 12 member committee vested with power to make law;</b> the destruction of our manufacturing capabilities; the transferring of America’s technology to hostile foreign nations; the strangulation of our agricultural industry and ability to produce food under the guise of environmental necessity; the destruction of our nation’s health care delivery system, the interference with our ability to develop our natural resources, namely oil, to fuel our economy; the looting of both our federal treasury and a mandatory retirement pension fund; the brainwashing of our nation’s children in government operated schools; the trashing of our nation’s traditions and moral values; the creation of an iron fisted control unauthorized by our written Constitution over America’s businesses and industries; the devaluation of our nation’s currency, and, the future enslavement of our children and grand children via unbridled debt and inflation, not to mention an iron fisted government which intends to rule their very lives! </i>johnwkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10095532892217206265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20360462.post-85656040957527507692011-07-20T17:55:00.000-07:002011-07-20T18:02:37.084-07:00Glenn Beck, balancing the federal budget and the Republican Party LeadershipI see Glenn Beck is now promoting the balanced budget amendment, but what section of the proposed balanced budget amendment actually requires Congress to balance the annual budget when Congress borrows during the course of a fiscal year to meet its expenses? Answer: nothing in the proposal (H.J.RES.1 or S.J.RES.5) requires Congress to “balance the budget” when Congress borrows during the course of a fiscal year to meet its expenses.<br /><br />But our Republican Party Leadership is very clever! Label a piece of legislation a “balanced budget amendment” and concerned Americans, even Tea Party Activists, will assume the Republican Party Leadership has come to America’s rescue and is determined to compel Congress to balance the annual budget. <br /><br />Unfortunately, the actual text of the legislation is cleverly designed to allow Congress to not only continue its reckless spending and borrowing, but the proposal would actually make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the annual budget! But do remember its title is a “balanced budget amendment”, and as such, who would be against a “balanced budget amendment” other than our big spending and borrowing “liberals“! And so, if one dares to utter a disapproval of the “balanced budget amendment”, our “concerned Americans” especially the Republican Party Leadership, is quick to smear such an utterance as being “left wing nonsense”. <br /><br />And that is how the beast in Washington survives and flourishes! It divides the people by using the old good-cop bad-cop routine. And in this particular discussion concerning a “balanced budget amendment“, our Republican Party Leadership must be the good cops because they promote a “balanced budget amendment”. Of course, our beast in Washington is quite confident the people, even Tea Party Activists, will neglect to read the amendment word for word, much less use critical thinking in judging its specific sections, and in all likelihood will simply align themselves with the good cop’s talking points, even though the words spin a tale very different than what the “balanced budget amendment‘s” text declares and is really designed to accomplish.<br /><br />And this is exactly what Glenn Beck seems to have done. He has avoided all critical thinking and discussion concerning the various sections of the “balanced budget amendment” and simply jumped on board because of an objective title, a “balanced budget amendment”, and he then has gone on to invite the ringleaders behind the proposal on his show who then influence his listening audience without being pressed into a critical analysis of the amendment’s specific sections.<br /><br />Let me also note that Glenn Beck has been derelict in reviewing our founding fathers clear intentions regarding deficits. And yet he constantly asserts his respect for our nation’s founding fathers. So, let us take a look at our founder’s expressed intentions regarding deficits.<br /><br />See, <a HREF="http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratnh.asp"><FONT COLOR="blue"><u><b>Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire; June 21, 1788</b></u></font></a> and keep in mind the same basic idea is expressed in several of the State Ratification documents giving life to our Constitution:<br /><br /><b><I>Fourthly That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the money arising from Impost, Excise and their other resources are insufficient for the Publick Exigencies; nor then, untill Congress shall have first made a Requisition upon the States, to Assess, Levy, & pay their respective proportions, of such requisitions agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way & manner as the Legislature of the State shall think best and in such Case if any State shall neglect, then Congress may Assess & Levy such States proportion together with the Interest thereon at the rate of six per Cent per Annum from the Time of payment prescribed in such requisition-</I></b><br /><br /><br />When Congress borrows to fund expenditures because incoming revenues are insufficient for the Publick Exigencies, an apportioned tax is to then be laid among the States using the following constitutionally authorized <b>fair share formula:</b><br /><b><br />States’ population<br /><br />---------------------------- X DEFICIT = STATE’S SHARE<br /><br />Total U.S. Population<br /></b><br /><br /><br />And what did our founders say about the rule of apportionment during the ratification debates?<br /><br />Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment says:<br /><br /><b><I>“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation“</I></b>__ <a HREF="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=004/lled004.db&recNum=317&itemLink"><u><b>4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6</b></u></a><br /><br />Also see: <b><I>“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”</I></b> <a HREF="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=254&itemLink"><u><b>3 Elliot`s, 243</b></u></a>, <b><I>“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax”</I></b> <a HREF="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=255&itemLink"><u><b></b></u></a> ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.<br /><br />And, Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s <b><I>“general power of taxation”</I></b> that, <b><I>"they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public."</I></b> <a HREF="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=266&itemLink"><u><b>3 Elliot‘s, 255</b></u></a><br /><br />And then there is Mr. PENDLETON‘S comment which goes directly to the evil being corrected!:<br /><br /><b><I>“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union [under the Articles of Confederation], she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”</I></b><a HREF="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=52"><FONT COLOR="blue"><u><b>3 Elliot’s 41</b></u></font></a><br /><br /><br />Finally, for an example of the rule of apportionment being applied see: <a HREF="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=003/llsl003.db&recNum=94"><FONT COLOR="blue"><u><b>Act laying a direct tax for $3 million</b></u></font></a> in which each State’s apportioned share was figured out and each State’s Congressional Delegation returned home with a bill in hand for their State’s apportioned share to extinguish a deficit.<br /><br />Also see <a HREF="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=003/llsl003.db&recNum=112"><FONT COLOR="blue"><u><b>Section 7 of direct tax of 1813</b></u></font></a> allowing states to pay their respective quotas <u>and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.</u><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Bottom line is, our founding fathers’ were not stupid nor negligent in providing a procedure to deal with deficits. And if applied, the founder’s no-nonsense apportioned tax would create a very real moment of accountability when each State’s Congressional Delegation would have to return home with a bill in hand for the deficit they helped to create, and suffer the consequences, which is far different from the fraudulent balanced budget amendment cooked up by the Beast Washington which is nothing more then a clever scheme to allow the Washington Establishment to continue its reckless borrowing and plundering what America’s businesses and labor have produced. Unlike the fake balanced budget amendment, our founders method did in fact “balance the budget”, created a very real moment of accountability, and, precluded the class warfare game with a fixed rule requiring any general tax to be apportioned among the States.<br /><br />Now, for those who are concerned about annual federal deficits and would like to support a real “balanced budget amendment”, I have prepared the one below which is based on our founding fathers expressed intentions which I have documented for you.<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>The “Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment”</b><br /><br />Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.<br /><br /><br />“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money<br /><br /><I>NOTE: these words would return us to our founding father’s <a HREF="http://townshipnews.org/?p=1360"><FONT COLOR="blue"><u>ORIGINAL TAX PLAN</u></font></a> as they intended it to operate! And, these words would remove the existing chains of taxation which Congress now uses to enslave America‘s businesses, its industrial and manufacturing base, and they would end the slavish tax which now confiscates what Mary and Joe Sixpack earn when selling the property each has in their labor. In addition, the words would also end the class warfare game which the Beast in Washington uses to divide the people.</I><br /><br />"SECTION 2. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year's deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit."<br /><br /><I>NOTE: Congress is to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties, [taxes at our water’s edge], and may also lay miscellaneous internal excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption. But if Congress spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes during the course of a fiscal year, then, and only then, is the apportioned tax to be laid.</I><br /><br />"SECTION 3. When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 2 of this Article, the Secretary of the United States Treasury shall, in a timely manner, calculate each State's apportioned share of the total sum being raised as agreeable to the Census fixed in the Constitution, and then provide the various State Congressional Delegations with a Bill notifying their State’s Executive and Legislature of its share of the total tax being collected and a final date by which said tax shall be paid into the United States Treasury."<br /><br /><I>NOTE: the fair share formula to extinguish a deficit would be:<br /><br /> States’ population<br /><br />---------------------------- X DEFICT = STATE’S SHARE<br /><br />Total U.S. Population<br /><br /><br />This is to insure that those states who contribute the lion’s share of the tax are guaranteed a representation in Congress proportionately equal to contribution, i.e., <u>representation with proportional obligation!</u></I><br /><br />"SECTION 4. Each State shall be free to assume and pay its quota of the direct tax into the United States Treasury by a final date set by Congress, but if any State shall refuse or neglect to pay its quota, then Congress shall send forth its officers to assess and levy such State's proportion against the real property within the State with interest thereon at the rate of ((?)) per cent per annum, and against the individual owners of the taxable property. Provision shall be made for a 15% discount for those States paying their share by ((?))of the fiscal year in which the tax is laid, and a 10% discount for States paying by the final date set by Congress, such discount being to defray the States' cost of collection."<br /><br /><I>NOTE: This section respects the Tenth Amendment and allows each state to raise its share in its own chosen way in a time period set by Congress, but also allows the federal government to enter a state and collect the tax if a state is delinquent in meeting its obligation. </I><br /><br />"SECTION 5. This Amendment to the Constitution, when ratified by the required number of States, shall take effect no later than (?) years after the required number of States have approved it.<br />___________<br /><br />JWK<br /><br /><b><I>Our federal government personifies a living creature, a predator: it grows, it multiplies, it protects itself, it feeds on those it can defeat, and does everything to expand its powers and flourish, even at the expense of enslaving a nation’s entire population.</I></b>johnwkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10095532892217206265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20360462.post-53461973145793094012011-05-28T12:43:00.000-07:002011-05-28T14:28:26.607-07:00Our Supreme Court, our founding fathers, and immigration vs. naturalization!SEE: <br /><a HREF="http://unitedsc.org/2011/05/27/scotus-upholds-az-law-imposing-penalties-on-employers/"><FONT COLOR="blue"><u>SCOTUS Upholds AZ Law Imposing Penalties On Employers</u></font></a> <br /><br />Published: May 26, 2011<br /><br /><b><I>WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld an Arizona law that imposes harsh penalties on businesses that hire illegal immigrants.</I></b><br />___cut___<br /><br /><b><I>The challenge to the Arizona law that was the subject of Thursday’s decision was brought by a coalition of business and civil liberties groups, with support from the Obama administration.<br /><br />They said the law in question, the Legal Arizona Workers Act, conflicted with federal immigration policy.</I></b><br /><br />Now, just for the record, let us review our founding fathers own words regarding immigration and naturalization.<br /><br />The big lie, which Eric Holder and his puppet big media have been promoting is, that the federal government has supreme authority to deal with “immigration” and thus, exclusive authority over aliens who have invaded a State’s borders. They claim the exclusive power is found in Article VI, clause 2 of our federal Constitution which declares:<br /><br /><br /><b><I>“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” </I></b><br /><br /><br />But the above “supremacy” only applies to those powers specifically enumerated and delegated by the States to the federal government in our written federal Constitution. And the irrefutable fact is, there is no power granted to Congress to regulate “immigration” mentioned in our Constitution! More importantly, a reading of the debates of our founding fathers involving our nation’s <b><I>Rule of Naturalization in 1790</I></b> established beyond any doubt, the various States specifically avoided granting a sweeping power over immigration to Congress. And, the limited power granted is over “Naturalization” which is stated as follows: <br />Congress shall have power:<br /><br /><br /><b><I>To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization …</I></b> Article 1, Section 8<br /><br />The Constitution also states <b><I>The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States</I></b> Article IV, Section 2)<br /><br />NOTE: It is important to keep in mind that prior to the adoption of our existing Constitution citizenship was bestowed under state law. And upon the adoption of our existing Constitution, as stated above, the Citizens of each State became entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. However, once the Constitution was ratified, the federal government was granted exclusive authority <b><I>To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization … </I></b><br /><br />Now, let us determine our founding fathers use of the word “Naturalization” and if there is a clear distinction between the word “Naturalization” as distinguished from “immigration” which is not even mentioned in our Constitution!<br /><br /><br /><b>REPRESENTATIVE WHITE</b> while debating the Rule of Naturalization notes the narrow limits of what “Naturalization” [a power granted to Congress] means, and he <b><I>”doubted whether the constitution authorized Congress to say on what terms aliens or citizens should hold lands in the respective States; the power vested by the Constitution in Congress, respecting the subject now before the House, extend to nothing more than making a uniform rule of naturalization. After a person has once become a citizen, the power of congress ceases to operate upon him; the rights and privileges of citizens in the several States belong to those States; but a citizen of one State is entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States…..all, therefore, that the House have to do on this subject, is to confine themselves to an uniform rule of naturalization and not to a general definition of what constitutes the rights of citizenship in the several States.”</I></b> see: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, <br /><a HREF="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=576"><FONT COLOR="blue"><u>PAGE 1152</u></font></a> <br /><br /><br />And <b>REPRESENTATIVE STONE <I>… concluded that the laws and constitutions of the States, and the constitution of the United States; would trace out the steps by which they should acquire certain degrees of citizenship [page 1156]. Congress may point out a uniform rule of naturalization; but cannot say what shall be the effect of that naturalization, as it respects the particular States. Congress cannot say that foreigners, naturalized, under a general law, shall be entitled to privileges which the States withhold from native citizens.</I></b> See: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790,<br /><a HREF="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=578"><FONT COLOR="blue"><u>PAGE 1156</u></font></a> and <a HREF="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=579"><FONT COLOR="blue"><u>PAGE 1157</u></font></a> <br /><br /><br />In addition, <b>REPRESENTATIVE SHERMAN</b>, who attended the Convention which framed our Constitution expresses the very intentions for which the power [Naturalization] was granted to Congress. He says: <b><I>“that Congress should have the power of naturalization, in order to <u>prevent particular States receiving citizens,</u> and forcing them upon others who would not have received them in any other manner. It was therefore meant to guard against an improper mode of naturalization, rather than foreigners should be received upon easier terms than those adopted by the several States.”</I></b> see CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES, Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, <br /><a HREF="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=574"><FONT COLOR="blue"><u>PAGE 1148</u></font></a><br /><br /><br />In fact, the power delegated to Congress over Naturalization was to preclude a State from granting citizenship on easy terms and allowing undesirables to gain citizenship, and those citizens then moving to another state and upsetting local customs or become disruptive to the general welfare of the State. The founders wanted to make certain that those who obtained citizenship would be productive citizens and loyal to America! And thus, the power was granted to Congress <b><I>To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization…</I></b> But, no power was ever granted to our federal government over the various States original policing powers dealing with immigration and aliens who enter their borders, and especially not over aliens who have entered our country or a state illegally!.<br /><br />The only expressed authority regarding “migration“ found in our Constitution is <b>Article 1, Section 9 which declares:</b><br /><br /><br /><b><I>The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person. </I></b><br /><br />And this provision was of course the precursor to ending slavery in America by taxing the importation of slaves, and not a grant of power to the federal government to enter a state and meddle in a state‘s policing powers designed to promote its internal general welfare ___ a power specifically retained by the States!<br /><br /><br />From the above we learn that, “migration” is the act by which people move from one place to another, while “Naturalization” is the act by which an alien becomes a citizen. We also learn that the rules by which a foreign national may become a citizen of the united States have been entrusted to Congress and done so for a specific reason ___ to ensure the general welfare of the states against undesirable aliens becoming citizens. <br /><br />So, while President Obama and his Administration may pretend that the federal government has authority to determine immigration policy within a State‘s borders, our Constitution is very clear in granting Congress a power to establish how an alien may become a citizen of the united states, which has nothing to do with the State of Arizona, or any State in the union, from dealing with aliens who have entered their state illegally. The power over this subject matter has never been relinquished by the various united States and remains in tact as it was prior to the adoption of our Constitution which declares in crystal clear language: <b><I>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.</I></b>___ Tenth Amendment<br /><br /><br />JWK<br /><br /><br /><I><b>"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"</b></i> Justice Storyjohnwkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10095532892217206265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20360462.post-49152515106011991892011-01-22T12:39:00.000-08:002011-01-22T12:41:13.358-08:00Making Laws ``necessary and proper``, our Founder`s meaningOur federal Constitution grants power to Congress:<br /><br /><b><I>To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof </I></b>---Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18<br /><br />So, what did the framers and ratifiers intend by including these words in our Constitution? Were the words in question intended to allow Congress to make and enforce any law it may decide to be “necessary and proper”? The Anti-Federalist vigorously objected to vest such power in the new government being created, and, the clause in question, as stated by the Anti-Federalist appeared to be an allowance for unlimited power and would ultimately be used by the federal government to consume all powers intended to be reserved by the various States. In answer to such fears, the Federalists repeatedly assured that such interpretations of the clause in question were not intended, nor could the clause in question be construed as such without <b><I>intentional misrepresentations!</I></b><br /><br />In Federalist No. 33 Hamilton, in explaining the clause with relation to taxation says:<br /><br /><b><I>“These two clauses have been the source of much virulent invective and petulant declamation against the proposed Constitution….This simple train of inquiry furnishes us at once with a test by which to judge of the true nature of the clause complained of. It conducts us to this palpable truth, that a power to lay and collect taxes must be a power to pass all laws NECESSARY and PROPER for the execution of that power; and what does the unfortunate and culumniated provision in question do more than declare the same truth, to wit, that the national legislature, to whom the power of laying and collecting taxes had been previously given, might, in the execution of that power, pass all laws NECESSARY and PROPER to carry it into effect? I have applied these observations thus particularly to the power of taxation, because it is the immediate subject under consideration, and because it is the most important of the authorities proposed to be conferred upon the Union. <u>But the same process will lead to the same result, in relation to all other powers declared in the Constitution. And it is EXPRESSLY to execute these powers that the sweeping clause, as it has been affectedly called, authorizes the national legislature to pass all NECESSARY and PROPER laws. If there is any thing exceptionable, it must be sought for in the specific powers upon which this general declaration is predicated. The declaration itself, though it may be chargeable with tautology or redundancy, is at least perfectly harmless.</u></I></b><br /><br />Likewise, MADISON states the following with regard to the necessary and proper clause often referred to as the “sweeping clause“:<br /><br /><b><I>But it gives no supplementary power. It only enables them to execute the delegated powers. If the delegation of their powers be safe, no possible inconvenience can arise from this clause. It is at most but explanatory. For when any power is given, its delegation necessarily involves authority to make laws to execute it. Were it possible to delineate on paper all those particular cases and circumstances in which legislation by the general legislature would be necessary, and leave to the states all the other powers, I imagine no gentleman would object to it. But this is not within the limits of human capacity. The particular powers which are found necessary to be given are therefore delegated generally, and particular and minute specification is left to the legislature.</I></b> --- <a HREF="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=449&itemLink=r%3Fammem%2Fhlaw%3A@field%28DOCID%2B@lit%28ed0031%29%29%230030001&linkText=1"><u><b>3 Elliots 438</b></u></a><br /><br />Madison’s words are also in harmony with that of GEORGE NICHOLAS regarding the clause in question: <br /><br /><b><I>…he observed that, if it had been added at the end of every one of the enumerated powers, instead of being inserted at the end of all, it would be obvious to any one that it was no augmentation of power. If, for instance, at the end of the clause granting power to lay and collect taxes, it had been added that they should have power to make necessary and proper laws to lay and collect taxes, who could suspect it to be an addition of power? As it would grant no new power if inserted at the end of each clause, it could not when subjoined to the whole</I></b>.____ <a HREF="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=454&itemLink=r%3Fammem%2Fhlaw%3A@field%28DOCID%2B@lit%28ed0031%29%29%230030001&linkText=1"><u><b>3 Elliots 443</b></u></a><br /><br />And, in the North Carolina ratification debates, MACLAINE says the following: <br /><br /><br /><b><I>Mr. Chairman, <br /><br />…if we had all power before, and give away but a part, we still retain the rest. It is as plain a thing as possibly can be, that Congress can have no power but what we expressly give them. There is an express clause which, however disingenuously it has been perverted from its true meaning, clearly demonstrates that they are confined to those powers which are given them. This clause enables them to "make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or any department or officers thereof." This clause specifies that they shall make laws to carry into execution all the powers vested by this Constitution; consequently, they can make no laws to execute any other power. This clause gives no new power, but declares that those already given are to be executed by proper laws. I hope this will satisfy gentlemen.</I></b>____ <a HREF="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=004/lled004.db&recNum=152&itemLink=r%3Fammem%2Fhlaw%3A@field%28DOCID%2B@lit%28ed0041%29%29%230040001&linkText=1"><u><b>4 Elliots 141</b></u></a><br /><br />It should also be noted that Wilson, who participated in the drafting the Constitution, states the following during the Pennsylvania ratification debates: <br /><br /><b><I>The gentleman in opposition strongly insists that the general clause at the end of the eighth section gives to Congress a power of legislating generally; but I cannot conceive by what means he will render the words susceptible of that expansion. Can the words, "The Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper to carry into execution the foregoing powers," be capable of giving them general legislative power? I hope that it is not meant to give to Congress merely an illusive show of authority, to deceive themselves or constituents any longer. On the contrary, I trust it is meant that they shall have the power of carrying into effect the laws which they shall make under the powers vested in them by this Constitution</I></b>___ <a HREF="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=002/lled002.db&recNum=459&itemLink=r%3Fammem%2Fhlaw%3A@field%28DOCID%2B@lit%28ed0021%29%29%230020001&linkText=1"><u><b>2 Elliots 448</b></u></a>……. And he goes on to state that the power in question <b><I>“gives no more or other powers; nor does it, in any degree, go beyond the particular enumeration; for, when it is said that Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper, those words are limited and denned by the following, "for carrying into execution the foregoing powers." It is saying no more than that the powers we have already particularly given, shall be effectually carried into execution</I></b>____ <a HREF="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=002/lled002.db&recNum=479&itemLink=r%3Fammem%2Fhlaw%3A@field%28DOCID%2B@lit%28ed0021%29%29%230020001&linkText=1"><u><b>2 Elliots 468</b></u></a><br /><br />Which brings us to the following line of reasoning. If the Anti Federalist feared the necessary and proper clause would create a general and unlimited legislative power and were against such power being granted to Congress, and, the Federalists assured the Anti-Federalist that such an interpretation was not within the intended meaning of the clause in question, who can be pointed to during the framing and ratification of our Constitution as being an advocate for granting this unlimited power to Congress? I suspect the only ones who attach an unlimited and general legislative power to the clause in question are those who today want the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean and want our Washington Establishment to be able to adopt and enforce a variety of new regulatory powers never intended to be exercised under our written Constitution, and are actually forbidden to be exercised by our Constitution’s Ninth and Tenth amendments!<br /><br /><br />JWK<br /><br /><br /><b><I>Expounding upon our Constitution is not a matter of “interpretation” as some would have us believe…it is a task of “documentation”! Enemies of our constitutional system wish to ignore the recorded intentions for which our Constitution [each article, section, clause and amendment] was adopted in order to then be free to make the Constitution mean whatever they wish it to mean.</I></b>johnwkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10095532892217206265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20360462.post-70420497043333382842010-12-21T05:38:00.000-08:002010-12-21T05:42:45.889-08:00Obama Administration obstructing justice in healthcare suit!The facts are as follows. <br /><br />Our Constitution reads:<br /><br /><b>Article 3</b><br /><br />SECTION 1:<br /><br /><br /><b><I>The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, <u>and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.</u></I></b><br /><br /><br />SECTION 2<br /><br /><b><I>“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which <u>a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.”</u></I></b><br /><br /><br />In fact, a State is Party in the case in question, and as such, the Constitution commands that the “supreme Court <u>shall</u>have original Jurisdiction”, which means “shall“, not should, or maybe, but "shall" have original jurisdiction and not an inferior Court created by Congress. <b><I>District courts are inferior courts created by Congress.</I></b><br /><br /><br />The meaning of "original jurisdiction" is that bestowed upon a tribunal in the first instance, and “shall“, as used in “the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction” preempts another tribunal, such as the inferior district courts created by Congress, from assuming the case in the first instance.<br /><br /><br />In addition, Hamilton, in <a HREF="http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed81.asp"><u><b>Federalist Paper No. 81</b></u></a> confirms the Obamacare case ought to have been originally filed in supreme Court and not district court which is one of the inferior courts created by Congress:<br /><br />Hamilton says:<br /><br /><b><I>“Let us now examine in what manner the judicial authority is to be distributed between the supreme and the inferior courts of the Union. The Supreme Court is to be invested with original jurisdiction, only "in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which A STATE shall be a party.'' Public ministers of every class are the immediate representatives of their sovereigns. All questions in which they are concerned are so directly connected with the public peace, that, as well for the preservation of this, as out of respect to the sovereignties they represent, it is both expedient and proper that such questions should be submitted in the first instance to the highest judicatory of the nation. Though consuls have not in strictness a diplomatic character, yet as they are the public agents of the nations to which they belong, the same observation is in a great measure applicable to them. <u>In cases in which a State might happen to be a party, it would ill suit its dignity to be turned over to an inferior tribunal.”</u></I></b><br /><br />And this is why, under “An Act to establish the Judicial Courts of the United States“ Act of 1789, 1 Stat. CH. 20 see: <a HREF="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=203"><u><b>Supreme court, original jurisdiction</b></u></a> (scroll to bottom of page) we find:<br /><br /><br /><b><I>"SEC. 13. And be it further enacted, That the Supreme Court shall have <u>exclusive jurisdiction</u> of all controversies of a civil nature, <u>where a state is party,</u> except between a state and its citizens; and except also between a state and citizens of other states, or aliens, in which latter case it shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction."</I></b><br /><br />In fact, by the wording of our Constitution, the Supreme Court and not the inferior courts created by Congress such as federal district courts, has original jurisdiction over the Obamacare case and the Obama Administration is obstructing justice!<br /><br />SEE: <a HREF="http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/20101215_Justice_Dept__says_it_won_t_fast-track_health-care_appeal.html"><u><b>Justice Dept. says it won't fast-track health-care appeal</b></u></a><br /><br /><br /><b><I>“WASHINGTON - The Justice Department said Tuesday that it would appeal a federal judge's ruling declaring part of President Obama's health-care overhaul unconstitutional, but it rejected suggestions to take the appeal straight to the Supreme Court. <br /><br />Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who brought the suit decided Monday by U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson in Richmond, urged the administration to ask the high court to directly accept an appeal, as did Virginia Gov. Robert McDonnell….”</I></b><br /><br /><br />Bottom line is, Obama is delaying the case to insure enough people become dependent upon those provisions of Obamacare which have already taken effect so the Court will then have the excuse that overturning Obamacare would cause undue hardships among the people and disrupt the economy. <br /><br /><br /><b>Justice delayed is justice denied and Obama is interfering with the case being decided in a timely manner in the Supreme Court which has original jurisdiction over cases in which a State is party!</b><br /><br />JWK<br /><br /><B><I>Health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a <a HREF="http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?ContentID=166&amp;ParentID=0&SectionID=4&SectionTree=4&lnk=b&ItemID=164"><u><b>PROGRESSIVE</b></u></a> majority vote in Congress! </I></B>johnwkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10095532892217206265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20360462.post-78764043256827003932010-12-17T16:49:00.000-08:002010-12-17T16:52:51.314-08:00Obamacare and regulating commerce __ our Founder`s meaning and intentions!Our Constitution states that Congress shall have power to: <br /><br /><b><I>“…regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”</I></b><br /><br />So, just what is the meaning of “commerce” which Congress may regulate when it occurs “among the several States”? Keep in mind this question is of critical importance because a fundamental rule of constitutional law requires:<br /><br /><b><I>”Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding <u>at the time of its adoption…</u></I></b>” ___(my emphasis) See: Vol.16, American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), “Meaning of Language“, <b><I>“Ordinary meaning, generally“</I></b><br /><br />In fact, the historical record establishes that the word “commerce”, as our founding fathers used the word during the framing and ratification process of our Constitution, was understood to mean the transportation and/or exchange of goods. In U.S. vs. Lopez, our very own Supreme Court, after quoting the use of the word “commerce” from countless contemporary sources during the time period when our Constitution was being framed and ratified, summarizes the meaning of the word as follows: <br /><br /><b><I>“Agriculture and manufacturing involve the production of goods; commerce encompasses traffic in such articles.”</I></b> <br /><br />Now that we understand the meaning of commerce within the context of our Constitution, another important fundamental rule of constitutional law comes into play and is stated as follows:<br /><br /><br /><b><I>“The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.”</I></b>--(numerous citations omitted) See: 16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law.(1992 edition), Par. 92. <b><I>Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.</I></b><br /><br />So, just what was the intended purpose for granting power to Congress to regulate commerce <u>among</u> (not within) the States? A clue establishing the purpose is immediately found in Art. 1, Sec. 9 of the Constitution! <br /><br /><b><I>“No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.”</I></b> <br /><br />Indeed, Congress was given the power as it relates to the various states, to insure free trade among the States --- an uninhibited transportation of goods among the states to prevent one state from taxing another state’s goods as they passed through its borders.<br /><br />We also find confirmation of this purpose in Federalist Paper No. 42 in which Madison states the following with regard to the power in question: <br /><br /><b><I>“A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquility.”</I></b> <br /><br />Additionally, the power to regulate commerce granted to Congress was to also allow Congress to have oversight in a specific and clearly identified area__ a state‘s inspection laws:<br /><br /><br /><b><I>“No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.”</I></b> ___ See: Article 1, Section 9, Clause 6<br /><br />It is sheer insanity to suggest the State Delegates to the Convention of 1787 which framed our Constitution, or the State Legislatures when ratifying the Constitution, intended by the power in question to be authorizing a power to Congress to enter the States to compel the people therein to purchase a product, much less interfere with an individual’s decision making regarding their personal health care needs and choices. And this is why Judge Hudson, in <I>Commonwealth of Virginia, et al v. Sebelius, et al</I>, with regard to Obamacare and its provision to require individuals to purchase government approved health insurance, found it to be un-constitutional and if allowed to stand would invite an <b><I>“unbridled exercise of federal police powers.”</I></b> <br /><br />While it cannot be reasonably questioned that Congress has power over the transportation of articles as the move among the States, it is nothing short of despotic reasoning for Obama and his progressive gang on Capitol Hill to assert Congress’ power to regulate commerce among the states is intended to and allows the federal government to enter the various states and require the people therein to purchase a particular article of trade favored by Congress. <br /><br />And why is it despotic reasoning? Because the people have never debated authorizing Congress with power to involve itself in their personal health care needs and choices, and then consenting to such power to be granted to Congress as required under Article V of our Constitution, in which the people’s consent must first be obtained by <b><I>the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof</I></b>, prior to our federal government’s exercise of any new powers. <br /><br />And what is the feeling of the various states regarding Obamacare? The incontrovertible fact is, 21 states have officially declared their objection to Obamacare which means the requirements of Article V of our Constitution cannot be meet, and thus, Obama, his Justice Department, and our progressive gang on Capitol Hill in pushing forward to impose Obamacare upon the people are acting in defiance of our written Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted!<br /><br />Bottom line is: <b><I>Health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a</I></b> <a HREF="http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?ContentID=166&amp;ParentID=0&SectionID=4&SectionTree=4&lnk=b&ItemID=164"><u><b>PROGRESSIVE</b></u></a><b><I> majority vote in Congress! </I></b><br /><br />JWK<br /><br /><b><I>"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void.</I></b> ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)johnwkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10095532892217206265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20360462.post-34895585916189827492010-09-18T07:14:00.000-07:002010-09-18T07:16:05.852-07:00U.S. Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction in Obamacare case!<P>According to our Constitution this case should not be in District Court. The wording in our Constitution is crystal clear: <BR><BR><BR><B><I>“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a <U>State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.”</B></I></U><BR><BR><BR>And, the wording in our Constitution concerning the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction becomes even clearer when reading <B>“An Act to establish the Judicial Courts of the United States“</B> Act of 1789, 1 Stat. CH. 20 <A href="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&amp;fileName=001/llsl001.db&amp;recNum=203"><B><U><FONT color=#0000ff>Supreme court, original jurisdiction</B></U></FONT></A> (scroll to bottom of page):<BR><BR><B><I>"SEC. 13. And be it further enacted, That the Supreme Court shall have <U>exclusive jurisdiction</U> of all controversies of a civil nature, where a state is party, except between a state and its citizens; and except also between a state and citizens of other states, or aliens, in which latter case it shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction."</B></I> <BR><BR><BR>What concerns me at this point in time is prolonging the case in lower courts when we all know it will be settled in the Supreme Court, allows major portions of Obamacare to take effect. This in turn creates a situation when the case finally gets to the Supreme Court, striking Obamacare down at that time would cause major disturbances in the “economy” and hardships among the people who at that time will be tied into Obamacare.<BR><BR><BR>And because of the above reasoning, I ask why have the States who have challenged Obamacare in Court as being un-constitutional not filed for an injunction to halt the implementation of Obamacare while the constitutionality of Obamacare is decided to avoid creating an irreversible situation? It seems as though there is an intentional desire to prolong the case and have major portions of Obama care in place and operating before the case is heard by the Supreme Court!<BR><BR><BR>Something is just not right, especially when the Supreme Court <B><I>“shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies of a civil nature, where a state is party…”</B></I><BR><BR><BR>JWK<BR><BR><BR><B><I>Health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a </B></I><A href="http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?ContentID=166&amp;ParentID=0&amp;SectionID=4&amp;SectionTree=4&amp;lnk=b&amp;ItemID=164"><B><I><U><FONT color=#0000ff>PROGRESSIVE</B></I></U></FONT></A><B><I> majority vote in Congress! </P></B></I>johnwkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10095532892217206265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20360462.post-40119942748402960882010-09-06T16:34:00.000-07:002010-09-06T16:40:13.196-07:00Deceptive balanced budget amendment has 16 Republican co-sponsors!<P>&nbsp;</P><br /><P>If there is any single issue which smokes out and identifies progressive thinking low life politicians, balancing the federal budget on an annual basis would surely be among the top ten picks. So, let us take a look at the most recent proposal to balance the annual budget to see if it is really designed to force an annually balanced federal budget.<BR><BR>Sen DeMint, [SC] introduced the following proposal on 2/4/2010 which has 16 co-sponsors:<BR><BR>Sen Burr, Richard [NC] <BR>Sen Chambliss, Saxby [GA]<BR>Sen Coburn, Tom [OK]<BR>Sen Cornyn, John [TX]<BR>Sen Crapo, Mike [ID]<BR>Sen Ensign, John [NV]<BR>Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY]<BR>Sen Graham, Lindsey [SC]<BR>Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK]<BR>Sen Isakson, Johnny [GA]<BR>Sen Kyl, Jon [AZ]<BR>Sen LeMieux, George S. [FL]<BR>Sen McCain, John [AZ]<BR>Sen Risch, James E. [ID]<BR>Sen Sessions, Jeff [AL]<BR>Sen Vitter, David [LA]<BR><BR><A href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.J.RES.27:.."><B><U><FONT color=#0000ff>S.J.RES.27 -- Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States</B></U></FONT></A><BR><BR>(editorial comments are in bold)<BR><BR>`Article--<BR><BR>`Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote.<BR><BR><B>NOTE: Under Section 1, the amendment immediately states how it may be overruled by a three-fifths vote. </B><BR><BR>`Section 2. The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a rollcall vote.<BR><BR><B>NOTE: Under Section 2, the very intentions for the amendment [putting an end to increasing the national debt] can be subverted by allowing Congress to increase the national debt without providing specific taxes equaling the increase in the national debt.</B><BR><BR>`Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year in which total outlays do not exceed total receipts.<BR><BR><B>NOTE: Section 3 is absolutely meaningless and an illusion to portray fiscal responsibility. Have we not just learned with the recent health care proposal debate how <I>projected</I> figures can be manipulated by our Executive to portray legislation in which outlays and receipts are in balance when they are not?</B><BR><BR>`Section 4. A bill to increase the internal revenue shall require for final adoption in each House the concurrence of two-thirds of the whole number of that House by rollcall vote.<BR><BR><B>NOTE: While Section 4 discourages taxes to be increased by requiring a two-thirds vote in each House, the amendment encourages Congress to simply increase the national debt by a three fifths vote in both Houses.<BR></B><BR><BR>`Section 5. The Congress may waive the provisions of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House, which becomes law.<BR><BR><B>NOTE: The flimflamery under Section 5 is most remarkable. In addition to setting the amendment aside as stated in Section 1, a simple majority vote in each House may ignore the requirement to balance the budget by simply declaring an existing military conflict has caused an “imminent and serious military threat to national security“. Have we not just seen how this “crisis” scare tactic mentality has been used to plunder our federal treasury under TARP; how it has been used to bail out auto companies which have blood sucking unions, and used to increase the national debt beyond human comprehension?</B> <BR><BR>`Section 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts.<BR><BR><BR><B>NOTE: And here, under Section 6, we find the proposal‘s crown jewel! It is proposed to be etched in stone [our Constitution] that the entire balanced budget act heretofore is to be based upon “estimates”. How sweet of the amendment’s supporters to be so confident in, e.g., the Office and Budget Management, which has just opened the door to Obamacare with its fuzzy math ‘estimates” which are now known, beyond the shadow of doubt, to be nothing more than mathematical alchemy to allow additional unsustainable spending and borrowing.</B><BR><BR>`Section 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except for those for repayment of debt principal.<BR><BR><B>NOTE: And what happens when total receipts derived from borrowing far exceed those for repayment of debt principal?</B><BR><BR><BR>`Section 8. The provisions of this article respecting the internal revenue shall take effect upon the date of ratification of this article. The remaining provisions of this article shall take effect beginning with the later of the second fiscal year beginning after its ratification or the first fiscal year beginning after December 31, 2015.'.<BR></P><br /><P>_________</P><br /><P><BR>Bottom line is, Senator DeMint and his 16 co-sponsors are perpetrating a fraud which is titled “a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States“. The truth is, the proposal neither compels an annual balanced budget, nor requires equal taxes to finance increases in the national debt.<BR><BR>And just for the record, let it be known that our existing Constitution already provides a specific method [an apportioned tax among the States] to deal with annual deficits should Congress borrow to meet its expenditures. But our progressive thinking RINOs, and the fans of an ever expanding and bloated federal government, fear the wisdom of our founding father’s instructions for dealing with deficits. Our founder’s instructions, if followed, would bring to a grinding halt the plundering of our national treasury, end Congress’s irresponsible spending and borrowing, and above all, would make every member of Congress immediately accountable to their State’s Governor and Legislature should Congress engage in irresponsible deficit spending, in which case, each state’s Congressional Delegation would have to return home with a bill for their State to pay to extinguish any deficit Congress created during the year by Congress. And, each State’s share of the bill is pre determined by our Constitution’s <B><I>fair share formula:</B></I><BR><BR><B>State's population<BR><BR>---------------------------- X DEFICIT = STATE’S SHARE<BR><BR>Total U.S. Population</B><BR><BR><BR>As you can see, there are no gimmicks under our founder’s no nonsense remedy. It’s pay to play all the way! For a summary of our Founder’s original tax plan see: <A href="http://townshipnews.org/?p=1360"><B><U><FONT color=#0000ff>CLICK HERE</B></U></FONT></A>. And for historical documentation of the apportioned tax <A href="http://files.meetup.com/574256/IB%2309%20State%20Rate%20Tax.pdf"><B><U><FONT color=#0000ff>CLICK HERE</B></U></FONT></A>.<BR><BR><BR>JWK<BR><BR><BR><B><I>“…a national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be such a one, that, while it secures the object of revenue it shall not be oppressive to our constituents.”___ </I>Madison, during the creation of our </B><A href="http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&amp;fileName=001/llac001.db&amp;recNum=55"><B><U><FONT color=#0000ff>Nation’s first revenue raising Act</B></U></FONT></A> </P><FONT size=2></FONT>johnwkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10095532892217206265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20360462.post-40558559186395727152010-07-22T06:49:00.000-07:002010-07-22T06:50:35.966-07:00Arizona is not usurping federal power with SB-1070, but the big lie continues. Why?<P>SEE: <A href="http://www.kvoa.com/news/sb-1070-hearing-in-phoenix-today/"><B><U><FONT color=#0000ff>SB 1070 Hearing in Phoenix today</B></U></FONT></A><BR><BR><BR>“<B><I>Salgado's attorneys argue the judge should block the law before it takes effect because it would require the officer to use race as a primary factor in enforcing the law and <U>because the state law is trumped by federal immigration law“.</B></I></U><BR><BR><BR>We are continually told by our big media that Arizona’s SB-1070 law is usurping the federal government’s exclusive authority over immigration. But our big media, including FOXNEWS, never points to that part of our Constitution which grants an exclusive power to Congress over immigration. And, it never does so because the word “immigration”, surprising as it may seem, does not appear in our Constitution! In fact, the exclusive power granted to Congress which is alleged to be usurped under Arizona’s SB-1070 law is Congress’ power to set the requirements under which an alien may become a naturalized citizen of the United States. The specific wording in our Constitution being a power <B><I>“To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization“</B></I>! <BR><BR>The power granted to the federal government over “naturalization” does not override the various State’s policing powers which may be adopted by a State for the protection and general welfare of its citizens, nor does the State of Arizona exercising its policing power as outlined in SB-1070 interfere in any manner whatsoever with Congress’ existing requirements (existing law) by which an alien may become a citizen of the United States. <BR><BR>As a matter of fact, one may argue that Arizona, and every State in the Union, actually has an obligation to determine who is and who is not a “citizen of the united States” as outlined in SB-1070, because citizens of the united States, under our Constitution’s 14th Amendment, are guaranteed the “privileges or immunities” the state in which they are located has to offer. But those who are not “citizens of the united States”, and especially those who have entered a State, or the United States illegally,<B><I><U> are not entitled to those “privileges or immunities“</B></I></U>. And so, each State has an obligation and constitutionally grounded purpose to determine who is and who is not a “citizen of the United States”. The 14th Amendment only requires that those who have entered Arizona illegally may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the benefit of the state’s <I>due process of law</I> being applied to them equally, as it is applied to all others persons. <BR><BR>BTW, those who are interested in the limited power granted to Congress concerning its power over “naturalization” as articulated by our founding fathers ought to study our nation’s first <B><I>Rule of Naturalization</B></I>. For example, <B>REPRESENTATIVE WHITE</B> while debating the Rule of Naturalization notes the narrow limits of what “Naturalization” [a power granted to Congress] means, and he <B><I>”doubted whether the constitution authorized Congress to say on what terms aliens or citizens should hold lands in the respective States; the power vested by the Constitution in Congress, respecting the subject now before the House, extend to nothing more than making a uniform rule of naturalization. After a person has once become a citizen, the power of congress ceases to operate upon him; the rights and privileges of citizens in the several States belong to those States; but a citizen of one State is entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States…..all, therefore, that the House have to do on this subject, is to confine themselves to an uniform rule of naturalization and not to a general definition of what constitutes the rights of citizenship in the several States.”</B></I> see: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, <A href="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&amp;fileName=001/llac001.db&amp;recNum=576"><B><U><FONT color=#0000ff>page 1152</B></U></FONT></A><BR><BR>And <B>REPRESENTATIVE STONE</B> … <B><I>concluded that the laws and constitutions of the States, and the constitution of the United States; would trace out the steps by which they should acquire certain degrees of citizenship [page 1156]. Congress may point out a uniform rule of naturalization; but cannot say what shall be the effect of that naturalization, as it respects the particular States. Congress cannot say that foreigners, naturalized, under a general law, shall be entitled to privileges which the States withhold from native citizens.</B></I> See: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, pages <A href="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&amp;fileName=001/llac001.db&amp;recNum=578"><B><U><FONT color=#0000ff>1156</B></U></FONT></A> and <A href="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&amp;fileName=001/llac001.db&amp;recNum=579"><B><U><FONT color=#0000ff>1157</B></U></FONT></A> <BR><BR>In addition,<B> REPRESENTATIVE SHERMAN,</B> who attended the Convention which framed our Constitution expreses the very intentions for which the power [Naturalization] was granted to Congress. He says: <B><I>“that Congress should have the power of naturalization, in order to <U>prevent particular States receiving citizens,</U> and forcing them upon others who would not have received them in any other manner. It was therefore meant to guard against an improper mode of naturalization, rather than foreigners should be received upon easier terms than those adopted by the several States.” </B></I>see CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES, Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, <A href="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&amp;fileName=001/llac001.db&amp;recNum=574"><B><U><FONT color=#0000ff>page 1148</B></U></FONT></A><BR><BR>The irrefutable fact is, the various states never delegated to Congress their original policing powers within their borders as may apply to aliens who have entered their borders illegally, and exercising this power does not interfere with Congress’ existing rule of naturalization, PERIOD!<BR><BR><BR>JWK <BR><BR><BR><B><I>"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void.</B></I> ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)</P>johnwkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10095532892217206265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20360462.post-12858417529732844422010-07-03T16:57:00.000-07:002010-07-04T07:48:27.102-07:00Justice Alito was wrong in McDonald v. Chicago<P>The 39th Congress did not intend by the 14th Amendment to make the provisions of our Constitution’s first ten amendments enforceable upon the States by the federal government as alleged by Justice Alito. <a HREF="http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=75903231&postcount=51"><u><b>SEE HERE</b></u></a><br /><br />As for the right to keep and bear arms, I assume all freedom loving Americans agree that is a right not to be infringed upon by government, local, state or federal. As for me, I see that right originating and manifesting itself in the inalienable right of mankind to defend one’s self and family, and as such, every state, local or federal law which would infringe upon a law abiding member of the community to exercise this right, is an assault not only upon an inalienable right, but an assault upon the very principles our founding fathers believed in and engrained in our constitutions, state and federal. <BR><BR><BR>The right to keep and bear arms is a self evident right, just as the right to breath air is a self evident right of mankind … <U>and neither need a law to protect the right!</U> But our wise founding fathers, after adopting our federal Constitution, decided to add further declaratory restrictions to our federal Constitution to prevent <U>the newly formed federal government</U> from misconstruing or abusing its powers, one of which was specifically directed at preserving the right to keep and bear arms. How do I know this to be true? Because it is stated, in crystal clear language, in the <A href="http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/resolu02.asp"><B><U><FONT color=#0000ff>Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789</B></U></FONT></A> <BR><BR><BR><B><I>THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, <U>in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added</U> .</B></I><BR><BR><BR>And as to powers reserved by the States and the people, often referred to as “federalism”, Madison states the following with regard to adopting the first ten amendments to our federal Constitution:<BR><BR><BR><B><I>“It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this House, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of Government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents and patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is laudable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who at present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of Federalism”</B></I> ___See :<A href="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&amp;fileName=001/llac001.db&amp;recNum=226"><B><U><FONT color=#0000ff>Madison, June 8th, 1789, Amendments to the Constitution</B></U></FONT></A><BR><BR><BR>The misapplication of the 14th Amendment and the subjugation of federalism by our federal government has brought us the slaughtering of millions of unborn babies by fraudulently applying the Ninth Amendment to the States via the 14th Amendment (Roe vs. Wade). The 14th Amendment has also been used to removed traditional references to God in our State public school systems by having the federal government applying the First Amendment to the States via a misapplication of the 14th Amendment. A misapplication of the 14th Amendment has also been used to compelled schools and colleges to set up and recognize homosexual clubs on a par with traditional type clubs, calling it equal protection of law, and a misapplication of the 14th Amendment has been used to compel taxpayers to finance pornography and alleged “art”, “art” which makes a bigoted mockery of religion, calling it freedom of speech, not to mention the enforcement of the federal bill of rights upon the states by the federal government to dissolved parental rights calling it a federal privacy right, while the Fourth and Fifth amendments have been fraudulently applied to the states by the federal government to coddle criminals in each of the 50 States! <B><I>And now, it is called a “victory” because the federal government [Congress and federal judges] will be in charge of applying the 2nd Amendment to the states via Alito’s misapplication of the 14th Amendment, and will then be the final arbiter in determining “reasonable” regulations over the right to keep and bear arms?</B></I> <BR><BR><BR>For the Court to apply the 2nd Amendment to the states and have the federal government [Congress and federal judges] protect this right within each of the various State borders is to hand another victory to our progressive crowd who will now be able to apply the Daley plan in every state in the union, and do so with one stroke of the federal pen, and in the process undermine federalism, our Constitution’s plan and rob the reserved powers of the States and the people as was done in Roe vs. Wade! This is what Alito has handed to our <A href="http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?ContentID=166&amp;amp;ParentID=0&amp;SectionID=4&amp;SectionTree=4&amp;lnk=b&amp;ItemID=164"><B><U><FONT color=#0000ff>PROGRESSIVE DOMESTIC ENEMIES </B></U></FONT></A>a usurped power for folks in the federal government to regulate the right to keep and bear arms into extinction! <BR><BR><BR>Now, if Alito really wanted to preserve the inalienable right to self defense in McDonald v. Chicago, there was a constitutional argument to be made and it did not need a misapplication of the 14th and Second Amendments, nor a further erosion of federalism to protect an inalienable right. The argument is as I have already stated <B><I>The right to keep and bear arms is a self evident right, just as the right to breath air is a self evident right of mankind … and neither need a law to protect these inalienable rights! They stand on their own as being self evident!</B></I> <BR><BR><BR>Alito and Thomas could have continued, <B><I>We all know by reading our original state constitutions, and of course our federal Constitution’s preamble, that our founding fathers irrefutable intentions were to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, and within the meaning of Liberty, the inalienable right to self defense is irrefutable. Although the case can be made that members of a community who have proven to be a danger to the community ought not be entitled to keep and bear arms, this argument will never justify a State’s Legislature to use the force of government and sweeping language which infringes upon the law abiding citizen’s right to keep and bear arms for self defense and defense of one’s family. <BR><BR><BR>With these thoughts in mind, we urge Chicago’s Legislature to immediately re-write its regulations which deal with gun ownership so as to not infringe upon a law abiding citizen’s inalienable right to keep and bear arms. Failure to do so will suggest to the people of the united States that the Legislature of Chicago is acting in rebellion to the most fundamental principles under which our nation and constitutions, state and federal, were founded.</B></I><BR><BR><BR>JWK<BR><BR><BR><B><I>"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void.</B></I> ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858) </P><FONT size=2></FONT>johnwkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10095532892217206265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20360462.post-75318366551382741882009-11-27T10:30:00.000-08:002010-01-04T10:20:38.119-08:00Steny Hoyer perpetuates lie about ``general welfare`` and health care reform!See: <br /><a HREF="http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/55851"><u>Hoyer Says Constitution’s ‘General Welfare’ Clause Empowers Congress to Order Americans to Buy Health Insurance</u></a><br /><br />CNSNews.com<br />Wednesday, October 21, 2009<br />By Matt Cover, Staff Writer <br /><br /><b><I>House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said that the individual health insurance mandates included in every health reform bill, which require Americans to have insurance, were “like paying taxes.” He added that Congress has “broad authority” to force Americans to purchase other things as well, so long as it was trying to promote “the general welfare.”</I></b><br /><br /><br />Steny Hoyer’s lie, as stated by Matt Cover, that Congress has power to adopt and enforce the <I>Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009</I> under Congress’s power to “To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States“ dates back to a United States Supreme Court decision, Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), which upheld the Social Security Act. This is where the big lie begins and it must be exposed for what it is! A LIE! <br /><br />In the Helvering decision the court indicated the problem of unemployment was national as well as local, and in promotion of the <I>"general welfare"</I>, moneys of the Nation may be used to relieve the unemployed and their dependents in economic depressions and to guard against such disasters. <br /><br />The Court stated:<br /><br /><b><I><br />"Congress may spend money in aid of the 'general welfare.' Constitution, art. 1, 8; United States v. Butler, … There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. United States v. Butler, supra. The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison, which has not been lacking in adherents"<br /></I></b><br /><br />What is significant is, the court cites the Butler decision decided the previous year and goes on to assert Hamilton’s view concerning the phrase “general welfare” prevails over that of Madison, and, the Court will not “resurrect the contest”. In other words, the Court is not interested in reviewing the historical record during the framing and ratification debates of our Constitution and is satisfied with Hamilton’s point of view. <br /><br /><br />But what is not pointed out by the Court is the Hamilton view relied upon by the Court was not made during the framing and ratification debates of our Constitution, but rather, it was made after the Constitution had been ratified when Hamilton was Secretary of the Treasury and was made in a report on <a HREF="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsp&fileName=009/llsp009.db&Page=123"><u>Manufactures dated December 5th, 1791</u></a>. In fact, Hamilton made the claim with the specific intention to gain support for appropriating revenue from the federal treasury to be used to encourage specific manufactures. Gee, that sounds familiar. Does current banking bailouts ring a bell? <br /><br />In his report on Manufactures, Hamilton writes with reference to the meaning of the phrase “general welfare” and Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, <a HREF="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsp&fileName=009/llsp009.db&recNum=140"><u>SEE Page 136</u></a><br /><br /><b><I>“These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary and indefinite, and the objects to which it may be appropriated, are no less comprehensive than the payment of the public debts, and the providing for the common defense and general welfare. The terms “general welfare” were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which preceded: otherwise, numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union to appropriate its revenues should have been restricted within narrower limits than the “general welfare;” and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.”</I></b><br /><br />Now that’s amazing because in Federalist No. 83, which was written to explain the meaning of the Constitution to gain ratification, Hamilton, in crystal clear language, refers to a <b><I>“specification of particulars”</I></b> which he goes on to say <b><I>“evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority“.</I></b> Hamilton writes:<br /><br /><b><I>"...the power of Congress...shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended..."</I></b><br /><br />Of course this view expressed by Hamilton in the Federalist Papers during the framing and ratification debates is also in harmony with what Madison states during the framing and ratification debates:<br /><br />Madison, in No. 41 Federalist, explaining the meaning of the general welfare clause to gain the approval of the proposed constitution, states the following:<br /><br /><b><I>"It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes...to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor [the anti federalists] for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction...But what color can this objection have, when a specification of the object alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not ever separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?...For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power...But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning...is an absurdity."</I></b><br /><br />Likewise, in the Virginia ratification Convention Madison explains the general welfare phrase in the following manner so as to gain ratification of the constitution: <b><I>"the powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction."</I></b>[3 Elliots 95] <br /><br />Also see Nicholas, 3 Elliot 443 regarding the general welfare clause, which he pointed out <b><I>"was united, not to the general power of legislation, but to the particular power of laying and collecting taxes...."</I></b><br /><br /><br />Similarly , George Mason, in the Virginia ratification Convention informs the convention <br /><br /><b><I>"The Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare of the Union, I grant. But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to all powers which are not granted, that they are retained by the states. Otherwise the power of providing for the general welfare may be perverted to its destruction.".</I></b> [3 Elliots 442]<br /><br />For this very reason the Tenth Amendment was quickly ratified to intentionally put to rest any question whatsoever regarding the general welfare clause and thereby cut off the pretext to allow Congress to extended its powers via the wording provide for the “general welfare“.<br /><br />And so, as it turns out, the Court did not rely upon the expressed intentions of the founding fathers regarding the meaning of the phrase “general welfare” which were expressed during the framing and ratification process of our Constitution. The Court in Helvering, to advance FDR’s progressive agenda, decided to create the big lie and relied upon an opinion expressed after the Constitution was adopted which conflicted with the undisputed documented intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution was adopted and.<br /><br />In any event, the following question remains unanswered by our Supreme Court and old boy Steny Hoyer. If the Anti Federalist feared the wording “provide for … the general welfare” could be construed to be an unlimited grant of power and it was objectionable to them, and, the Federalists assured such an interpretation was not within the intended meaning of the Clause in question, who can be pointed to during the framing and ratification of our Constitution as wanting such a meaning to be attached to the wording in question? Without this question being answered, the most fundamental rule of constitutional law is subverted!<br /><br /><b><I>The most fundamental rule of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.</I></b>--- 16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law, Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling___ multiple citations omitted.<br /><br />Fact is, even Congress understands this fundamental principle of constitutional law, even though they now act in rebellion to it.: <br /><br /><b><I>"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution."</I></b>_____ Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967), <br /><br />Bottom line is, Congress is without constitutional power to tax for, spend on and regulate the personal health care choices and decisions of the people within the various united States!<br /><br />Regards,<br />JWK<br /><br /><br /><b><I>"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"</I></b>___ Justice Storyjohnwkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10095532892217206265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20360462.post-15250903165417304022010-01-02T09:25:00.000-08:002010-01-02T10:15:08.551-08:00Senator Harry Reid’s bribery violates rule of apportionment! (health care reform)See: <a HREF="http://www.lakelandtimes.com/main.asp?SectionID=9&SubSectionID=9&ArticleID=10729"><u>GOP attorneys general line up to challenge health care bill</u></a><br /><br /><b>December 31, 2009 <br />Richard Moore<br />Investigative Reporter</b><br /><br /><blockquote> <br /><b><I><br />“Led by S.C. attorney general Henry McMaster, at least 13 Republican attorneys general are studying a constitutional challenge to the Senate version of the health care bill, saying it violates tax uniformity and commerce guarantees by treating one state and its citizens differently than the 49 others.”<br /></I></b><br /></blockquote><br /><br />It would be nice if these Attorney Generals would first read Madison’s Notes on the Convention of 1787, the Federalist Papers and Elliot’s Debates before pointing to our Constitution’s provisions and claiming a provision would be violated if the Nelson deal were enforced.<br /><br />The requirement that all duties, imposts and excises shall be <b>uniform</b> throughout the United States is a weak argument against the Nelson deal. The clause in question was intended to apply to taxes imposed upon specifically chosen articles of consumption, insuring a uniformity of these taxes among the States. <br /><br />The Founder’s argument against the Nelson deal was specifically addressed and debated at length during the Convention of 1787. Our founding fathers intentionally adopted a specific rule to be followed if imposts, duties and miscellaneous excises taxes were found insufficient to meet Congress expenditures and Congress decided to fund its expenditures using a general tax laid among the states. Under these circumstances each state agreed, by our Constitution, to share in the burden proportionately equal to its number of “representatives”! What a remarkable idea --- <I><b>representation with proportional obligation!</b></I> But the Reid/Nelson deal is intentionally designed to relieve one State from its burden, its obligation, which other States will be taxed to fund. As a matter of fact, Senator Reid has struck a number of criminally inspired bribery deals with a number of Senators acquiescing in these deals, to gain their votes to move a piece of legislation forward, and which intentionally relieve particular States from sharing in the burden of taxation as required under the rule of apportionment! <br /><br /><br />For an example of the rule of apportionment being applied in a general tax among the states see:<a HREF="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=003/llsl003.db&recNum=94"><u>Act laying a direct tax for $3 million</u></a> August 2, 1813, and each State’s share of the federal burden.<br /><br /><br /> Also see: <a HREF="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=003/llsl003.db&recNum=112"><u>Section 7 of the tax of 1813</u></a> which provided a provision for the State Governments to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions.<br /><br />In addition check out <a HREF="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=005/llsl005.db&recNum=92"><u>This Act of Congress in June of 1836</u></a> when all surplus federal revenue in excess of $ 5,000,000 was distributed among the States, <I>and the rule of apportionment was observed and applied.</I> <br /><br />The irrefutable fact is, the very purpose for the rule of apportionment was to create a fixed rule if Congress found imposts, duties and miscellaneous excises taxes insufficient to meet federal expenditures and Congress decided to lay a general tax among the States to finance a federal burden, in which case the rule of apportionment would be strictly applied. These intentions were repeatedly stated during the framing and ratification debates, e.g.:<br /><br /><br /><b><I>Mr. George Nicholas: The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil.</I></b><a HREF="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=254&itemLink"><u>3 Elliot’s, 243</u></a> <I><b>Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax.</b></i> <a HREF="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=255&itemLink"><u>3 Elliot’s, 244</u></a> <br /><br />Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s <b><I>“general power of taxation”</I></b> that, <I><b>"they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public."</b></i> <a HREF="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=266&itemLink"><u>3 Elliot, 255</u></a><br /><br />And see Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment: <br /><br /><b><I><br />“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation“</I></b><a HREF="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=004/lled004.db&recNum=317&itemLink"><u>4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6</u></a><br /><br /><br />And what should loyal Americans, Tea Party Participants and 9-12ers expect from progressive socialists who always demand their one man one vote part of the Constitution? Are we to really expect these domestic enemies to also follow the rule requiring one vote one dollar, which is also part of the rule of apportionment and which gave them their one man one vote in Congress?<br /><br />Our fifth column sympathizing media and government operated public schools have been very effective in obscuring the intentions for which our founding fathers adopted Article 1 Section 2, Clause 3. As a matter of fact, they have even attempted to totally discredit it and our founding fathers by falsely claiming it made Blacks 3/5th of a person. But the bottom line is, the Nelson deal, if carried out as proposed under Harry’s criminally offered bribe, would violate the very intentions for which the rule of apportionment was adopted! Let all loyal Americans, especially Tea Party Participants and 9-12ers, unlike our domestic enemies, get our constitutional arguments correct and in harmony with the documented intentions under which our Constitution was adopted.<br /><br /><br />Regards,<br />JWK<br /><br /><b><I>“The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now. “</I></b>___ South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437 (1905)johnwkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10095532892217206265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20360462.post-86945351577863555892009-11-26T07:22:00.000-08:002009-11-26T08:13:17.416-08:00Nancy Pelosi press release: health care reform is “regulating commerce”!Well, isn’t this peachy? When Nancy Pelosi was questioned on the constitutionality of the House version of health care reform, her first response was “are you serious ?”. Now, Nancy offers a <B><a HREF="http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/factcheck?id=0107"><b><u>PRESS RELEASE</u></b></a></b> titled <b>“Health Insurance Reform Daily Mythbuster:”</b> asserting <I><b>“America’s Affordable Health Choices Act”</b></I> is constitutionally authorized under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, of our federal Constitution ___ <b><I>“The Congress shall have Power … To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes</I></b><br /><br />As it turns out the press release is filled with assertions stated as fact, and there is nothing to substantiate the delegation of power to Congress to <I>“regulate commerce among the several States”</I> was intended to allow Congress to enter the various states to regulate the personal health care needs of the people therein. Nor is there any references in the press release which documents the meaning of “commerce” as our founding fathers used the word during our Constitution’s framing and ratification debates. Why is Nancy’s missing information important? Because <b><i>“The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now. “</i></b>___ South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437 (1905) <br /><br /><br />In fact, documenting the meaning of “commerce” as used during the framing and ratification process of our Constitution is essential to a true understanding of what our Constitution means. Likewise, documenting the intentions for which a power was granted to Congress is also essential in establishing what our Constitution means. In other words, the meaning of words as they appear in our Constitution and how they were understood by those who framed and ratified our Constitution is essential when expounding upon our Constitution, and works in conjunction with the rule of being obedient to the documented intentions under which the Constitution was adopted. This rule precludes new and unintended meanings to be attach to the words and phrases in our Constitution which, if permitted, would allow the constitution to be subverted by intentional misconstructions.<br /><br />To put this another way, as stated by Thomas Jefferson, he writes: <b><I>"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."</I></b>--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.<br /><br />As a matter of fact, this just happens to be the most fundamental rule of constitutional law, see: <br /><br /><b>Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19, Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling</b><br /> <br /><b><I>“The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.”</I></b>--- numerous citations omitted.<br /><br />So, now that we understand the most fundamental rule of constitutional law, let us do some myth busting of Nancy’s press release and begin by documenting the meaning of “commerce” as used by our founding fathers during the time our Constitution was being framed and ratified, for it is their use of the word “commerce” which is required to be observed by Nancy when construing the Constitution. Likewise, let us also document the intentions for which the power to regulate “commerce” was granted, because the most fundamental rule of constitutional law is to be obedient to the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted. <br /><br />The historical record establishes that the word “commerce”, as our founding fathers used the word during the framing and ratification process of our Constitution was limited to and meant, the exchange of goods between the states. ___ the transportation and exchange of goods between point A and point B, and/or, between the people of point A and point B. In effect Congress was given the power in question to insure <I>free trade among the States</I> --- an uninhibited transportation of goods among the states, and to prevent one state from obstructing the movement of goods of another state or one State taxing another state’s goods as they passed through its borders.<br /><br />As to the documented meaning of the word “commerce” as used by our founding fathers, our Supreme Court in U.S. vs. Lopez provided a very detailed and well researched answer, part of which states:<br /><br /> <b>“… See The Federalist No. 4, p. 22 (J. Jay) (asserting that countries will cultivate our friendship when our trade is prudently regulated by Federal Government); id., No. 7, at 39-40 (A. Hamilton) (<I>discussing competitions of commerce</I>between States resulting from state <I>regulations of trade</I>); id., No. 40, at 262 (J. Madison) (asserting that it was an <I>acknowledged object of the Convention</I> . . . <I>that the regulation of trade should be submitted to the general government</I>) …Agriculture and manufacturing involve the production of goods; commerce encompasses traffic in such articles. “</b><br /><br />Indeed, the word “commerce” as used by our founding fathers had absolutely nothing to do with a regulatory power over the manufacturing or production of goods within the various State borders, a power which has been usurped by our existing federal government which acts in rebellion to our written Constitution and the documented intentions under which it was adopted!<br /><br />In reference to the documented intentions for which the power to regulate commerce among the States was granted to Congress, a clue to those intentions is quickly pointed out in Art. 1, Sec. 9 of our Constitution. <br /><br /><b><I>“No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.” </I></b><br /><br />We now begin to learn the intentions for which the power to “regulate commerce” was granted . . . one reason being, to prohibit preferences being made by Regulations of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another, and to prevent Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.”<br /><br />As pointed out in Federalist Paper No. 42 concerning the intention of the power to regulate commerce, Madison states the following: <br /><br /><br /><b><I>“A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquility.” </I></b><br /><br />The power to regulate commerce among the states was in fact intended to prevent one state from taxing another state’s goods as they passed through its borders, and that is the fundamental purposes for granting such power to Congress as established by the historical record!<br /><br />Additionally, the power to regulate commerce granted to Congress was to also allow Congress to have oversight in a specific and clearly identified area__ a state‘s inspection laws:<br /><br /><br /><b><I><br />“No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.”</I></b><br /><br /><br />It is sheer insanity to even suggest the State Delegates to the Convention of 1787 which framed our Constitution, or the State Legislatures when ratifying the Constitution intended by the power in question, to be delegating a power to Congress to enter the various States to regulate the health care choices and needs of the people therein and interfere with the people’s personal decision making over such a personal matter as their health care needs.<br /><br />The fact is, Congress has not been granted power to tax for, spend on and regulate the personal health care choices and needs of the people within the various united States and the debates during the framing and ratification process of our Constitution establishes this as fact! For example, the clear intentions of the founding fathers regarding “defined and limited” powers granted to Congress were summarized in Federalist No. 45 as follows:<br /><br /><b><I><br />“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. <br /><br />The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” </I></b><br /><br />It is also important to note the above intentions were given force and effect by the adoption of the Tenth Amendment which states:<br /><br /><b><I>“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.”</I></b><br /><br />The truth is, contrary to Nancy’s make believe myth buster press release, that Congress's powers are <b><I>“essentially unlimited“</I></b>, our Supreme Court, less than twenty years after our Constitution was adopted, articulated the unavoidable truth concerning the “defined and limited” powers of Congress as follows:<br /><br /><br /><b><I><br />“The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act. <br /><br />Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.<br /> <br />If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable. <br /><br />Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.”</I></b>___ MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) <br /><br /> <br />Bottom line is, Nancy Pelosi and her control freak crowd on Capitol Hill [Henry Waxman, Barney Frank, Steny Hoyer, Anthony Weiner, John Murtha, David Obey, Debbie Wasserman to mention a few] are without constitutional authority to enter the various united States to tax for, spend on and regulate the personal health care choices and needs of the people, and are proposing, with their version of health care reform, to act in rebellion to our written Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted ___ PERIOD! <br /><br /><br />JWK<br /><br /><b><I>Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean. </I></b>johnwkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10095532892217206265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20360462.post-89473349761843022132009-10-16T15:32:00.000-07:002009-10-16T15:35:11.952-07:00The Obama health insurance scam --- a must read for patriots!If you don’t believe that the Republican party leadership works in concert with the Democrat party leadership to protect the financial interests of unscrupulous big business, as distinguished from honorable businessmen, then you need to brush up on your history starting with the trusts and monopolies of the late 1800’s early 1900’s. If you do this and follow the path forward you will stumble upon the very actions of Congress which have resulted in today’s lack of competition in the purchase of health insurance policies. I will spare you the colorful historical details and hit the highlights for brevity’s sake but it is important to note the obnoxious nature of monopolies was well known to our founding fathers. For example, the Maryland Constitution states in clear language “that monopolies are odious, contrary to the spirit of free government and the principles of commerce, and ought not to be suffered.”<br /><br />During the late 1800’s there was constant outrage being expressed by the people concerning unfair business practices engaged in by monopolies and trusts which led to Congress adopting the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890, adopted to allegedly “protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies”. But the Act, when brought before the Supreme Court, was found to be ineffectual, probably adopted to calm the people rather than effectuate its stated goals. <br /><br />With the heat still on and both political party leaderships promising to address the issue, the Clayton Act was passed in 1914 to supplement and strengthen the Sherman Act. Keep in mind the alleged goal of Congress during this time period was to deal with monopolies, fight unfair trade practices, and promote competition. Well, isn’t that what Congress is still panhandling with regard to health insurance, that competition is needed in the industry to bring down prices?<br /><br />Moving forward, to the mid 1940’s a criminal indictment was handed down charging 27 individuals with violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Some of the specific allegations were conspiracy, price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing trade and commerce. Please, keep these charges in mind because they are very pertinent to our current situation. Anyway, the defendants in the case claimed they were not required to conform to the standards of business conduct established by the Sherman Act because “the business of fire insurance is not commerce.'“ But the Supreme Court decides the insurance business is in fact commerce and subject to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and Congress’s regulations. See SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASS'N, Decided June 5, 1944<br /><br />Less than a year after the Supreme Court decision is handed down, Congress passes the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 providing that the “business of insurance, and every person engaged therein, shall be subject to the laws of the several States which relate to the regulation or taxation of such business.” In other words Congress decides to relinquish its constitutionally assigned duty to regulate commerce among the States, but only with regard to the insurance industry. But, by handing this power over to the various State Legislatures it allows them to engage in practices which would otherwise be indictable under the Sherman and Clayton Acts, and the various State Legislatures decide to engage in such practices e.g., adopting discriminatory laws which work to stifle competition from out-of-state companies (restraint of interstate trade and commerce). <br /><br />The power of a State Legislature to impose discriminatory law upon out of state business entities doing business within their state is immediately tested in Prudential Ins. Co. v. Benjamin (l946). The South Carolina law is upheld by the Supreme Court. The law imposed an annual tax of 3 percent of the premiums of out of state business entities conducted in South Carolina which is not imposed on instate business entities. In fact, the Court in handing down its decision ignores the very intentions for which Congress was granted power to regulate commerce among the states, which was to put an end to the various states imposing discriminatory law upon out of state commerce and enshrine free trade among the States into our federal Constitution!<br /><br />But what is most amazing, when one realizes it, the defendants in the SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASS'N case were charged with conspiracy in price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing trade and commerce. Well, with Congress’s behind-the-scene deal making in 1945 [AKA conspiracy] the McCarran-Ferguson Act was passed and paved the way for the various Sate Legislatures to “legally” engage in price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing the insurance industry within their borders, which are indictable offenses under SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASS'N . <br /><br />And who is the victim in all this? Mary and Joe Sixpack who live in a particular state and now find it difficult, if not impossible, to purchase affordable health insurance which they may otherwise be able to afford if allowed to purchase their insurance from and out of state company.<br /><br />And what is the solution offered by Obama and the controlling political party leadership? Their solution is to create a massive nationwide government monopoly, engage in restraint of trade and competition among the States and price fixing, all of which has been found to be indictable offenses in SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERS ASS'N !<br /><br />The lesson which ought to be learned from this historical view is, there are those who will always work to stifle free trade among the people in order to gain an overwhelming advantage and control over the people. Whether they wear a $1000 business suite, or their name starts with Senator or Representative, their evil is to interfere with the people’s inalienable right to engage in free trade with their neighbors. <br /><br /><br />JWK<br /><br /><b><I>We are here today and gone tomorrow, but what is most important is what we do in between and is what our children will inherit and remember us by. </I></b>johnwkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10095532892217206265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20360462.post-2314668643764605152009-09-26T15:11:00.000-07:002009-09-27T13:54:50.371-07:00Judicial tyranny: the ACLU and Justice Ginsburg’s inventions exposed!One of the Supreme Court‘s “inventions” used to impose its will upon the people unknown to those who framed and ratified our Constitution, are various tests the court has created which are now used to subjugate and overcome the documented intentions and beliefs under which the various provisions of our Constitution have been adopted. These “tests” began to appear and gain a foothold during the Warren Court of the l960’s. One such test was the "rationality" test under which a law being challenged had to withstand the court’s judgment that the law in question was “rationally based” or “reasonable” to survive the court‘s review. Of course, this allowed the court to switch the subject from what is and what is not cstitutional, to a question having nothing to do with its constitutionality. Whether rational or not, a law which violates the Constitution cannot be justified as being constitutional if it is rationally based! Likewise, if a law is not rationally based it is not the Court’s job to second guess the wisdom of the legislature! To do so is to usurp legislative authority and its prerogative, and ignore the separation of powers in our system of government.<br /><br />For example, imaging for a moment that a black male was denied employment as a prison guard by a local state government based upon his race and the court, in spite of the 14th Amendment’s intended protection against state imposed race discrimination, upheld the denial of employment because the local government presented an <i>“exceedingly persuasive justification”</i> for not hiring the black male. This is what these tests are about, creating a platform for progressives on the Court to ignore the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted and impose their whims and fancies upon the people using flowery terms and phrases to justify ignoring the will of the people as expressed in a written Constitution!<br /><br />By the early 1970’s the Court using a variety of invented “tests” [rationally based, compelling state interest, intermediate scrutiny, strict scrutiny, etc.], started, with impunity, to ignore the documented intentions under which our Constitution was adopted and went on to impose its own ideas of social justice and court-ordered social reforms. Some of the important cases which demonstrate the Court’s assumption of legislative power by using these newly created tests are Reed vs. Reed 404 U.S. 71 (1971), Frontiero vs Richardson 411 U.S. 677 (1973), and Craig v. Boren 429 U.S. 190 (1976).<br /><br />It is also important to note that the ACLU and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was a volunteer for the American Civil Liberties Union in the 1970’s, were both very active in these cases and assisted the court in engineering clever words and phrases in conjunction with “tests” which were designed to parse words and subjugate the very intentions and beliefs under which the 14th Amendment was adopted.<br /><br />When Ginsburg became a member of the Supreme Court the ground work had already been laid with her help in establishing these despotic tests as part of the Court’s arsenal used by its progressive members to make the Constitution mean whatever they wished it to mean.<br /><br />In delivering the Court’s opinion in the <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&amp;vol=000&amp;invol=U20026"><span style="color:blue;"><u>Virginia Military Institute (VMI)</u></span></a>case, decided June 26, 1996, which commanded the Institute to accept women by citing the 14th Amendment as forbidding sex discrimination, Ginsburg pointed to previous Supreme Court rulings and the invented tests in question, and asserted a party seeking to uphold government action making a distinction based upon sex must establish an <b><i>"exceedingly persuasive justification"</i></b> In addition, Ginsburg noted, <b><i>“The justification must be genuine, not hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to litigation. And it must not rely on overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences of males and females.”</i></b><br /><br />But the fact remains, Ginsburg, in delivering the opinion, never established that under the 14th Amendment the people of America decided to prohibit distinctions based upon gender in addition to their intentional prohibition against state legislation based upon “race and color”! And, the fact remains, Justice Ginsburg couldn’t establish this constitutional prohibition (sex discrimination) because time and again during the debates which framed the 14th Amendment the intended prohibition against discrimination was identified as being limited to discrimination based upon <i>“race, color, or former condition of slavery”</i>, and only intended to apply in a very narrow area and protect the inalienable right of Blacks: <i>“to make and enforce contracts, to sue...to inherit, purchase...property as was then enjoyed by white citizens. <b>“Congress did not assume...to adjust what may be called the social rights of men...but only to declare and vindicate these fundamental rights.”</b></i>___ see the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3,22 (1883)<br /><br />The argument that the wording in the 14th Amendment: (a)“all persons”, (b)"No State shall make any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of United States.", (c) "[N]or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws", as being evidence the 14th Amendment was intended to forbid distinctions based upon sex, or intended to be a universal rule to bar every imaginable type of discrimination, such as in Martin vs. PGA Tour and also include discrimination based upon sex, falls flat on its face when reading the words of next Amendment to the Constitution! This Amendment (the 15th) prohibits a new type of discrimination not covered by the 14th Amendment! It prohibits discrimination, or to be more accurate, prohibits the right of voting to be denied or abridged on account of <i>“race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”</i> The intent of the 15th Amendment clearly being to enlarge the intended prohibition on state legislated race based discrimination mentioned in the 14th Amendment, and enlarging it to include the prohibition at the voting booth ---forbidding discrimination at the voting booth to be based upon <i>“race, color, or previous condition of servitude“</i>, while gender, and in particularly females, were not yet included in the protection.<br /><br />The argument that the 14th Amendment prohibits state discrimination based upon gender, becomes even weaker when reading the 19th Amendment which specifically forbids a new kind of discrimination. In this Amendment, the People of America decide to forbid gender discrimination [the discrimination mentioned by Ginsburg] but only extend the prohibition with respect to the right to vote being <i>“denied or abridged”</i> on account of <i>“sex” </i><br /><br />If the 14th Amendment prohibited every kind of discrimination, including discrimination based upon sex as Ginsburg alleged in the VMI Case, then why were these subsequent Amendments added to the Constitution after the adoption of the 14th Amendment?<br /><br /><br />Finally, why would there have been a proposed and so-call equal rights amendment attempted to be added to the Constitution of the United States in the 1980’s to prohibit sex discrimination but which never received the required number of ratifying States, if the 14th Amendment already prohibited discrimination based upon sex as Ginsburg alleges?<br /><br />Bottom line is, our SC, including Justice Ginsburg, is acting in rebellion to our written Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted. Indeed, our Supreme Court is in fact <i>"legislating from the bench"</i> so as to impose its own visions and court ordered social reforms using a variety of tests which switch the subject of a law’s constitutionality, to a question of the lawmakers wisdom. And, to meet the Court’s standards a law must be “reasonable“ and reflect what progressives on the Court arbitrarily fancy as social justice. In fact, a questioned law to pass Ginsburg’s test, must have an <i><b>"exceedingly persuasive justification"</b></i> and <b><i>“The justification must be genuine, not hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to litigation”</i></b>, regardless of whether or not the law is within the four corners of our Constitution which no longer appears to be an important factor to Ginsburg and her progressive friends on the Court.<br /><br /><br />JWK<br /><br /><b><I>Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, <u>as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records,</u>wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.</I></b>johnwkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10095532892217206265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20360462.post-65130755922418619852009-07-25T12:21:00.000-07:002009-07-25T12:54:54.553-07:00Sen. Graham, traitor from S.C. and Sotomayor___ the taking of private propertySEE: <a HREF="http://wbztv.com/national/Lindsey.Graham.Sotomayor.2.1096648.html">GOP Sen. Graham To Support Sotomayor</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><I><b>Jul 22, 2009 5:50 pm US/Eastern <br /><br />WASHINGTON (AP) ― Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said Wednesday that he will vote for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, breaking with his party's conservative leaders to back President Barack Obama's choice to be the first Hispanic justice. <br /><br />The South Carolinian, who had hinted during Sotomayor's confirmation hearings that he might back the 55-year-old judge, said he would vote yes because "elections matter," and he believes she's a well-qualified jurist with a mainstream record that shows her "troubling" statements on race and gender don't drive her decisions on the bench.<br /></b></I><br /><br /><br />Well isn’t that peachy, Senator Graham? Because “elections matter” we are to close our eyes to the oath of office we took to support “this Constitution” and vote to confirm a nominee to the SCOTUS who has, on repeated occasions, shown a disloyalty and disrespect for our constitutionally limited system of government, and has in fact been a willing accomplice in the savaging of constitutionally guarded guarantees, one of which is the protection of rights associated with property ownership!<br /><br />In case you didn’t know, Senator Graham, while sitting on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals Sotomayor ignored a property owner’s constitutional guarantee, Article V dealing with property ownership in <I>Didden v. Village of Port Chester</I> The case is summarized as follows: City officials of the Village of Port Chester had targeted Didden’s property in a redevelopment master plan. They wanted his property for a national chain drug store to be built thereon. Didden found a potential occupant, CVS, and a deal was struck to build a CVS drug/pharmacy store thereon which was in harmony with the City Official’s master plan. Didden was then contacted by G&S, a developer having a very close relationship with the Port Chester’s City officials and they demanded Didden to had over $800,000 to complete his deal with CVS, or agree to hand over fifty-percent of the profits earned under his CVS deal. Didden refused and remarkably the City Officials condemned Didden’s property the very next day and handed it over to G & S to build a Walgreens drug/pharmacy on the property in question .<br /><br />The facts of the case are not in dispute, and while it is true that some may claim there was no extortion because an offer was made to Didden which he could refuse, and others may say the offer was extortion with Didden‘s property hanging in the balance, both positions are irrelevant to the central issue which is private property being condemned by government and taken for a “public use“ which is not in harmony with the meaning of “public use“ as the words appear in our constitutions, federal and state, as they were understood by our founding fathers.<br /><br />Getting back to Senator Graham and Sotomayor, the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT in issuing its decision in Didden’s appeal and Sotomayor being among the Justices hearing the appeal stated: <br /><br /><b><I><br />Moreover, even if Appellants' claims were not time-barred, to the extent that they assert that the Takings Clause prevents the State from condemning their property for a private use within a redevelopment district, regardless of whether they have been provided with just compensation, the recent Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London, 125 S. Ct.2655 (2005), obliges us to conclude that they have articulated no basis upon which relief can be granted. </I></b><br /><br /><br />Now wait a second Senator Graham! Sotomayor, along with the other Justices as well as you, did not take an oath of office to uphold a tyrannical United States Supreme Court decision AKA as a precedent setting case. Each of you took an oath to support <I>“this Constitution”</I> which is stated in crystal clear language in Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution of the united States!<br /><br />The bottom line is, the City officials condemned a person’s property and handed it over to G&S. But the condemning of the land was not for a “public use” within the meaning of our Constitution, and, when the United States Court of Appeals reviewed the case, they, including Sonia Sotomayor, closed their eyes to the constitutional meaning of <I>“public use”</I> and relied upon Kelo which likewise ignored the meaning of “public use” as understood by our founding fathers when they agreed to put these words into our Constitution.<br /><br />In fact, the Kelo decision changes the meaning of “public use”, as the words appears in Article V and were understood by our founding fathers, and changed the meaning to include “public benefit” or “public purpose“. And after doing so, the Kelo decision even goes a step further to broaden the meaning of “public benefit” and/or “public purpose” to include and allow the taking of private property from its original owner, transferring that property to another private citizen, so long as the new owner’s use of the property provides an incidental “public benefit”, or an incidental “public purpose” as suggested in Didden, by G&S building a Walgreens. <br /><br />Of course, the Kelo decision savages the most fundamental rule of constitutional law!<br /><br /><b><I>“The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now.“</I></b>___ South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437 (1905)<br /><br />And, <br /><br /><b><I>"No part of the constitution should be so construed as to defeat its purpose or the intent of the people in adopting it."</I></b>Pfingst v State (3d Dept) 57 App Div 2d 163 . <br /><br /><br />The irrefutable savaging of the meaning of <I>“public use”</I> as used in our Constitution and used by our founding fathers is pointed out in the dissenting opinions in Kelo, e.g.:<br /><br />Justice O'Connor, with whom The Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas join, dissenting.<br /><br /><b><I><br /><br />Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result. "[T]hat alone is a just government," wrote James Madison, "which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own." For the National Gazette, Property, (Mar. 29, 1792), reprinted in 14 Papers of James Madison 266 (R. Rutland et al. eds. 1983).<br /></i></b><br /><br />Justice Thomas, dissenting.<br /><br /><b><I><br />Long ago, William Blackstone wrote that "the law of the land ... Postpone(s) even public necessity to the sacred and inviolable rights of private property." 1 Commentaries on the Laws of England 134-135 (1765) (hereinafter Blackstone). The Framers embodied that principle in the Constitution, allowing the government to take property not for "public necessity," but instead for "public use." Amdt. 5. Defying this understanding, the Court replaces the Public Use Clause with a " '[P]ublic [P]urpose' " Clause, ante, at 9-10 (or perhaps the "Diverse and Always Evolving Needs of Society" Clause, ante, at 8 (capitalization added)), a restriction that is satisfied, the Court instructs, so long as the purpose is "legitimate" and the means "not irrational," ante, at 17 (internal quotation marks omitted). This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a "public use." <br /></I></b><br /><br />Taking all the above into account and what is at stake, <b>rights associated with property ownership</b>, how on earth can one who supports and defends our constitutionally limited system of government vote to approve Sotomayor who has, on repeated occasions, shown a disloyalty and disrespect for our constitutionally limited system of government, and has in fact been a willing accomplice in the savaging of constitutionally guarded guarantees, one of which is pointed out above ___ the protection of rights associated with property ownership? And this does not even take into account Sotomayor’s trampling upon the specific intentions for which the 14th Amendment was adopted, an amendment adopted specifically to forbid the force of government being used to discriminate on the basis of race as was attempted by Sotomayor in the firefighter’s case, not to mention her joking of judges making public policy, which they are not authorized to do under our constitutionally limited system of government and is a function set aside for our legislatures. <br /><br />In closing, Mr. Graham, I have no problem classifying you as <b><I>Senator Lindsey Graham, our traitor from South Carolina</I></b> because you are a traitor to the oath of office you took and are a willing accomplice in the ongoing attack upon our Constitution ___ an attack which works to overturn the documented intentions under which it was adopted.<br /><br />JWK<br /><br /><b><I>Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, <u>as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records,</u>wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean. </I></b>johnwkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10095532892217206265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20360462.post-84175880458846688672008-08-02T15:22:00.000-07:002008-08-02T15:37:08.584-07:00Presidential candidates agree to trash Constitution!See: <a HREF="http://news.aol.com/article/house-passes-bill-to-regulate-tobacco/95128?cid=14"><FONT COLOR="blue"><u>House passes bill to regulate tobacco</u></font></a><br /><br /> <br /><br /><blockquote>WASHINGTON -The House on Wednesday overwhelmingly passed legislation that for the first time would subject the tobacco industry to regulation by federal health authorities charged with promoting public well-being. <br /><br />Its backers call the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act "landmark" legislation. While the bill appears to have enough support to pass this year, it's unclear whether the Senate will have time to act, and the Bush administration issued a veto threat Wednesday. <br /><br />The 326-102 House vote signaled solid bipartisan support for the measure, with 96 Republicans breaking with President Bush's position to vote in favor of the bill. <i>both presidential candidates, Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Barack Obama, D-Ill., back the legislation."</i> (my emphasis)</blockquote><br /><br />________<br /><br /><br />Well, if you thought either of our two presidential candidates intend to abide by their oath of office to support and defend the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted, the above is more evidence they are both tyrannical control freaks of the worst kind, and very much part of our Washington Establishment’s control freak crowd. Both Obama and McCain support the above proposed and tyrannical seizure of power and intend to have Congress enter the states and exercise a power not authorized by our written Constitution.<br /><br />The <a HREF="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1108"><FONT COLOR="blue"><u>Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act</u></font></a> (H.R.1108) states in part:<br /><br /><br /><blockquote>" b Registration by Owners and Operators- On or before December 31 of each year every person who owns or operates any establishment in any State engaged in the manufacture, preparation, compounding, or processing of a tobacco product or tobacco products shall register with the Secretary the name, places of business, and all such establishments of that person." </blockquote><br /><br /><br />And the question is, by what constitutional authority does Congress have power to enter a state to regulate the manufacture of tobacco products therein and compel a person who manufactures tobacco products in a particular state to register with the federal government?<br /><br /><br />Of course, our control freak crowd on Capitol Hill will claim such power is found under Article 1, Section 8, of our Constitution ___ that Congress has been granted power:<br /><br /><i>To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes</i><br /><br />So, let us take a look at the documented intentions for which power was granted to Congress to regulate commerce among [not within] the states. An immediate clue to those intentions is surprisingly discovered in another part of our Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 9:<br /><br /><blockquote><i>“No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: <b>nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.”</b>(my emphasis) </i></blockquote><br /><br />Indeed, we now begin to learn the intentions of our founding fathers with regard to commerce, which was to insure free trade [movement of goods] among the states.<br /><br /><br />And, in <a HREF="http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed42.htm"><FONT COLOR="blue"><u>Federalist Paper No. 42</u></font></a> Madison articulates the very reasons for which the power to regulate commerce ought to be placed under the national legislature‘s powers:<br /><br /><blockquote><i>“A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquility.”</i> </blockquote><br /><br />The power to regulate commerce <i>"among"</i> [not within] the states was primarily intended to prevent one state from taxing another state’s goods as those goods passed through its borders. There was never any intention expressed to allow Congress to enter a state to regulate industry, the manufacturing process of goods, the cultivation of agricultural products or their use and consumption, or regulate the production processes carried on within the various state borders.<br /><br /><br />Additionally, Congress was also to have oversight, a co-exercised power with the states in a specific and narrowly defined area__ a state‘s inspection laws:<br /><br /><blockquote><i><br />"No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress."</i> ____ Article 1, Section 10 </blockquote><br /><br /><br />The documented truth is, Congress is not authorized by our written Constitution, nor was there any intentions expressed during the framing and ratification process of our Constitution, to authorize Congress to enter a state to regulate the manufacture, sale, use, or consumption, etc., of any products! As a matter of fact, Congress’s limited powers in this particular area [regulation of commerce among the states] was specifically intended to prevent such interferences of free trade among the states, and which our control freak crowd now attempts to engage in by attaching new meaning to the word "commerce" and then regulating the <i>manufacture, preparation, compounding, or processing of a tobacco product or tobacco products.</i> <br /><br />Aside from the above documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted, there is still more glaring evidence, also found in the wording of our Constitution, to show our control freak crowd is proposing to allow Congress to act tyrannically and without Constitutional authority! <br /><br />In 1920 Congress was granted power to enter the states to prohibit the “the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors” see the 18th Amendment. Under section 2, the power to allow Congress to enter the states was intentionally granted by the states to the federal government by the following words:<br /><br /><i><b><br />The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.</b></i><br /><br />But this power granted to Congress to enter the various states to regulate the manufacture, sale, or transportation of a product was withdraw by the 21st Amendment and by the following words:<br /><br /><b><i><br />The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.</i></b><br /><br /><br />And thus, such regulatory power within the various states evaporated with the repeal of the 18th Amendment!<br /><br />In addition, the authority of the various states to once again exercise and assume sovereign control over their own internal affairs and adopt regulatory policing powers as the people in each state feel is in their own state’s best interests was intentionally taken back and emphasized by section two of the 21st Amendment!<br /><br /><blockquote><i><br />The transportation or importation into any State, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, <b>in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.</b></i></blockquote><br /><br />So why do we have Congress promoting legislation to seize regulatory powers within the various states in violation of our written Constitution which blatantly violates federalism, our Constitution’s plan?<br /><br />I would say the seizure of such power, aside from the obvious left wing control freak mindset which inspires it, also allows the creation of a substantial number of political plum jobs [federal regulators, administrators, etc.] which are awarded to the friends of big government and loyal to Congress ___ such jobs having excessive salaries, top of the shelf medical and dental plans and a very generous retirement plan, all of with Mary and Joe Sixpack, living South Carolina, can only dream of having but will be taxed to finance! See:<a HREF="http://federaljobs.net/"><FONT COLOR="blue"><u>WASHINGTON’S POLITICAL PLUM JOB OVERVIEW</u></font></a> <br /><br /><blockquote><i><br />Are you considering a government job? The federal government employs more than 2,700,000 workers and hires hundreds of thousands each year to replace civil service workers that transfer to other federal government jobs, retire, or leave for other reasons. Average annual salary for full-time federal government jobs exceeds $67,000. The U.S. Government is the largest employer in the United States, hiring about 2.0 percent of the nation's work force. Federal government jobs can be found in every state and large metropolitan area, including overseas in over 200 countries. <b>The average annual federal workers compensation, pay plus benefits, is $106,871 compared to just $53,288 for the private sector</b> according to the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis.</i> </blockquote><br /><br /><br />One final note with regard to the word “commerce”. As used by our founding fathers during the framing and ratification process it is found to be synonymous with “trade”, and had nothing to do with the regulation of industry, the manufacturing process of goods, the cultivation of agricultural products or their use, or the production processes carried on within the various state borders.<br /><br />The term “commerce“, as used by the founding fathers meant nothing more than the exchange of goods between the states. ___ the transportation and exchange of goods between point A and point B, and/or, between the people of point A and point B, and, Congress was given power to insure the free passage of goods and prevent one state from taxing another state’s goods as they passed through, which I documented above. But just for the readers personal benefit, I will provide the following examples of the word "commerce" being used during the ratification process of our Constitution which gives documented insight to its constitutional meaning.<br /><br /><br /><b>THE FOLLOWING IS TAKEN FROM THE MASSACHUETTS RATIFING CONVENTION WHEN THE CONVENTION WAS DISCUSSING ART. 1 SEC. 8, PROPOSED POWERS OF CONGRESS AND RAISING REVENUE</b><br /><br /><b>Mr. DAWES SPEAKING: </b><br /><br /><br />“As to commerce, it is well known that the different states”<br /><a HREF="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=002/lled002.db&recNum=69&itemLink"><FONT COLOR="blue"><u>PAGE 57</u></font></a>:<br /><blockquote><I><br />now pursue different systems of duties in regard to each other. By this, and for want of general laws of prohibition through the Union, we have not secured even our own domestic traffic that passes from state to state. This is contrary to the policy of every nation on earth. Some nations have no other commerce. The great and flourishing empire of China has but little commerce beyond her own territories; and no country is better circumstanced than we for an exclusive traffic from state to state; yet even in this we are rivalled by foreigners--by those foreigners to whom we are the least indebted. A vessel from Roseway or Halifax finds as hearty a welcome with its fish and whalebone at the southern ports, as though it was built, navigated, and freighted from Salem or Boston. And this must be the case, until we have laws comprehending and embracing alike all the states in the Union.<br /><br />But it is not only our coasting trade--our whole commerce is going to ruin. Congress has not had power to make even a trade law, which shall confine the importation of foreign goods to the ships of the producing or consuming country” </I></blockquote><br /><br /><b>IN CONTINUING ON THE SUBJECT AND Hon. Mr. BOWDOIN SPEAKING: </b><br /><br /><a HREF="http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=002/lled002.db&recNum=94&itemLink"><FONT COLOR="blue"><u>PAGE 83</u></font></a><br /><br /><blockquote><I>These are some of the consequences, certain and infallible, that will flow from the denial of that power to Congress. Shall we then, we of this state, who are so much interested in this matter, deny them that power -- a power so essential to our political happiness?<br /><br />But if we attend to our trade, as it is at present, we shall find that the miserable state of it is owing to a like want of power in Congress. Other nations prohibit our vessels from entering their ports, or lay heavy duties on our exports carried thither; and we have no retaliating or regulating power over their vessels and exports, to prevent it. Hence a decrease of our commerce and navigation, and the duties and revenue arising from them. Hence an insufficient demand for the produce of our lands, and the consequent discouragement of agriculture. Hence the inability to pay debts, and particularly taxes, which by that decrease are enhanced. And hence, as the necessary result of all these, the emigration of our inhabitants. If it be asked, How are these evils, and others that might be mentioned, to be remedied? the answer is short -- By giving Congress adequate and proper power. Whether such power be given by the proposed Constitution, it is left with the Conventions from the several states, and with us, who compose one of them, to determine.</I></blockquote><br /><br /><br />Now, where does one get the notion that the word “commerce” as used in our Constitution, is synonymous with “industry” or “manufacturing” etc., which would lead to the following absurd conclusion ? ___ that Congress has power <br /><br />“To regulate industry with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes“ which would follow if the assertion were correct. [see Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3]<br /><br />Regards,<br />JWK<br /><br /><I>Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, <b>as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records during our Constitution‘s framing and ratification process,</b> wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.</ I> <blockquote></blockquote><blockquote></blockquote>johnwkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10095532892217206265noreply@blogger.com